Speakers Commend Commission’s Work Harmonizing International Trade Law, Supporting Developing Countries, as Sixth Committee Takes Up Annual Report

Delegations Conclude Consideration of Universal Jurisdiction Principle

The Sixth Committee (Legal) took up the annual report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) today, as speakers spotlighted how the Commission’s work over its past session — both in methodology and substance — has benefitted developing countries while aiming to harmonize and modernize international trade law.

Kathryn Sabo (Canada), Chair of UNCITRAL’s fifty-sixth session, presented its annual report (document A/78/17) while noting that the Commission adopted four texts in the context of investor-State dispute-settlement reform.  Two of them contain key obligations for adjudicators involved in such settlement — including reinforcing their duties of independence and impartiality and expanding disclosure requirements.  She also spotlighted the adoption of a guide on access to credit for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, which examines regulatory and policy measures that can help reduce barriers in this area.

Noting that the Commission was informed that its Secretariat had incurred costs for the livestreaming of sessions, which was not included in UNCITRAL’s regular budget, she highlighted the strong support for this practice to continue, as it allows for inclusivity, transparency and broader participation by subject-matter experts in real time.  The Commission, therefore, requested that efforts be made to continue such livestreaming within existing resources, she said.

In the ensuing debate, the representative of Austria joined many others in expressing support for UNCITRAL’s work, pointing out that Vienna hosts its Secretariat.  He emphasized that the development of international trade law through the modernization and harmonization of international business rules is significant for the private sector.  Underscoring the importance, therefore, of widespread participation in the Commission’s deliberations, he also spotlighted his country’s contributions to provide travel assistance for developing countries.

Also underscoring the importance of inclusive debate was Chile’s representative, who welcomed UNCITRAL’s continuation of hybrid meetings that guarantee participation by experts from developing countries.  In addition, he underlined the importance of the Commission’s adoption of recommendations relating to micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, pointing out that such enterprises provide 50 per cent of global employment, create jobs in their respective countries and promote equitable economic growth.

The representative of the United States similarly welcomed UNCITRAL’s efforts to retain hybrid meeting formats, which will facilitate the widest possible engagement with its work.  Noting the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Investment Dispute Resolution was “a real achievement”, she said the text will help address concerns about the legitimacy of the investor-State dispute-settlement process and resulting awards.

Echoing that, Pakistan’s representative said the Code of Conduct will mitigate developing countries’ concerns pertaining to the composition of tribunals, as well as the overall fairness of the conduct of the proceedings.  UNCITRAL’s work to reform the investor-State dispute-settlement system should encompass both procedural and substantial issues, he added, stressing that the most important issue is the size of damages in arbitral awards.

Such reform will promote responsible international investment and ensure a fair and equitable system, said the representative of Morocco, who also reported that her country has undertaken efforts towards this end.  Spotlighting her country’s investment reforms to ensure its “attractiveness” for international investors, she emphasized that the business climate must be underpinned by transparent, sustainable and robust frameworks.

Detailing tangible progress in that regard, China’s representative recalled the signing ceremony that took place on 5 September for the United Nations Convention on the International Effects of Judicial Sales of Ships, also known as the Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships.  (That text was finalized by UNCITRAL during its previous session; for background, see Press Release GA/L/3664.)  She welcomed support by 15 signatory States thus far, encouraging more to join this instrument.  She added that her country — as always — will prioritize UNCITRAL’s work to harmonize and modernize international trade law. 

At the outset of the meeting, the Sixth Committee concluded its debate on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction.  (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3692.)

Togo’s representative said that universal jurisdiction aims to fill the vacuum when States are unwilling or unable to bring to justice those responsible for international crimes.  Above all, he stressed, it is “a matter of moral order and human conscience”.  However, he pointed out that it implicates a delicate balance between the imperatives of respecting sovereignty and non-interference on the one hand and punishing the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law on the other.

Emphasizing the importance of the former was Syria’s representative, who warned against the vagueness of the “unwilling or unable” concept, as it entails granting one State the right to decide on another’s unwillingness or inability to prosecute.  He also said that political motives stand behind the principle’s application, stating that — in its current form — universal jurisdiction does not meet the minimum global rule of law conditions.

Myanmar’s representative, however, provided a concrete example of that concept, stressing that there is no environment for credible national investigations into the allegations of serious international crimes under the illegal military junta that took power in 2021.  That junta destroyed the rule of law, he reported, adding:  “Subsequently, military impunity is widespread.”  He therefore expressed support for any good-faith exercise of universal jurisdiction to hold the junta accountable for past and ongoing atrocities.

At the close of the meeting, the Committee considered two requests for observer status in the General Assembly.

The Sixth Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 17 October, to begin consideration of the rule of law at the national and international levels.

Scope and Application of Universal Jurisdiction

OUMAROU GANOU (Burkina Faso), associating himself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that universal jurisdiction could be one of the most appropriate mechanisms to combat impunity for international crimes “when faced with inertia or errors on the part of the State exercising jurisdiction”.  It can also serve as the ultimate recourse for victims to have their cases heard, he added, noting that his country has incorporated the principle into its codes governing criminal law and procedure.  This allows the courts of Burkina Faso to exercise jurisdiction over international crimes — such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity — regardless of where they are committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims.  Stressing that debates on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction should not overshadow the legitimate concerns of some delegations, he said that the principle must be applied cautiously and in good faith.  Further, its limits must be clearly defined to avoid misuse.

LIGIA LORENA FLORES SOTO (El Salvador), associating herself with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said the norms of universal jurisdiction are a duty — both national and international — to prevent, investigate and identify those responsible for crimes and punish them under criminal law.  In El Salvador, the normative and case law enables the recognition and application of universal jurisdiction, specifically article 10 of the country’s Criminal Code which regulates the possibility of applying its criminal law to crimes committed irrespective of location and the individuals involved.  Stressing the need for strengthening legal frameworks to ensure effectiveness, she also spotlighted the latest case law, in 2022, in which the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice underlined the important aspect of the Rome Statute.  In this way, the Chamber noted that the State has an international obligation to ensure effective punishment of crimes against humanity, war crimes and a lack of statute of limitations for these crimes, she asserted.

AZELA GUERRERO ARUMPAC-MARTE (Philippines), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that universal jurisdiction is considered part of her country’s legal framework through an incorporation clause in the Constitution as well as a law on crimes against international humanitarian law, genocide and other crimes against humanity.  As the principle in an exemption to the general rule of territorial jurisdiction, its scope and application must be limited and clearly defined.  Because universal jurisdiction is only undermined by its unrestrained invocation and abuse, immunity of State officials must be preserved and respected. Offences to which it applies must be limited to international crimes deemed so fundamental to a just international legal order that States cannot derogate from them.  The rationale behind the principle is that the crime is so grave that it is considered to be committed against the international community as a whole, which grants every State jurisdiction over the act, she said. 

ISSA KONFOUROU (Mali), aligning himself with the African Group, reported that the principle of universal jurisdiction has been established in his country’s national codes governing criminal law and procedure since 2001 — and has been further updated since that time. This allows Malian tribunals to assert jurisdiction over acts committed at the international level by Malians or other nationals that are not subject to statutes of limitations.  Universal jurisdiction is an effective tool for combating impunity, given that it denies criminals haven after they commit barbaric acts.  It also provides an opportunity to ensure justice and guarantee social stability. To ensure the effective application of this principle, however, the exercise of universal jurisdiction should be underpinned by subsidiarity and rooted in criminal-law principles, such as the right to due process and the presumption of innocence.  Further, a balance must be struck between the needs of the justice system and the sovereignty of States. 

KAJAL BHAT (India), association herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that in legal parlance the term “jurisdiction” refers both to rulemaking and rule enforcing.  Noting that a State invoking universal jurisdiction claims to exercise it over any offender, irrespective of their nationality and the place of commission of the offence, she questioned whether the jurisdiction provided for specific serious international crimes in certain treaties could be converted into a commonly exercisable jurisdiction in respect of a wider range of offences.  She observed that piracy on the high seas is the only crime over which claims of universal jurisdiction is undisputed — codified in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Further, she added that international treaties have provided basis for universal jurisdiction for the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, among others, emphasizing that it should be understood as the jurisdiction of States to prosecute their nationals wherever they are located.  In this context, nationality is the justification for a State to protect and to prosecute individuals, she said.

AMARA SHEIKH MOHAMMED SOWA (Sierra Leone), associating himself with the African Group, reported that his country applies the principles in a limited scope.  Offences and penalties for specific violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are stipulated in his country’s domestic law. The legal framework covers crimes committed by persons of “whatever nationality within or outside [of] Sierra Leone”, allowing the national courts to prosecute violations of international humanitarian law.  He also called for addressing the abuse and misuse of the principle in a corresponding General Assembly resolution, as this concern of the African Group is yet to be satisfactorily addressed.  Recalling that Sierra Leone and Japan were the main sponsors of an Assembly resolution on international cooperation regarding survivors of sexual violence, he asked that the International Law Commission develop draft provisions on the application of universal criminal jurisdiction in relation to sexual and gender-based crimes.

TCHAKPIDE OURO-BODI (Togo), associating himself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that universal jurisdiction aims to fill the vacuum when States are unwilling or unable to bring to justice those responsible for international crimes, he said, emphasizing that it is, above all, “a matter of moral order and human conscience”. However, it implicates a delicate balance between the imperatives of respecting sovereignty and non-interference on the one hand and punishing the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law on the other.  Therefore, its scope must be limited and complementary in nature, and it must not contradict the jurisdiction of national courts.  He also underscored that the increasingly widespread politicization of this principle — along with its asymmetrical application — undermines stability in the States concerned.  It should only apply to crimes whose seriousness is undisputed, including terrorism, the financing thereof, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, maritime piracy, slavery, torture, human trafficking, migrant smuggling, hostage-taking and counterfeiting.

BETELIHEM TAYE (Ethiopia), associating herself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that his country’s criminal law has long adopted universal jurisdiction for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, money laundering and other crimes provided under the treaties Ethiopia ratified.  She, however, emphasized that this principle should only be used as a last resort and in a manner that supports the primary role of countries with direct links to the specific incident.  Moreso, universal jurisdiction should not be conflated with the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and other similar ad hoc mechanisms — which only have jurisdiction based on specific agreements between States — pointing out that Ethiopia is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not support any approximation between the Court’s competence over its members and universal jurisdiction. “The arbitrary and politically motivated application of the notion by some courts should not be allowed to undermine the principle of sovereignty of States,” she stressed.

ENIOLA OLAITAN AJAYI (Nigeria), associating herself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, called on the international community to clearly define the scope of the principle to prevent its abuse.  As the perpetrators of heinous crimes increasingly avoid justice by escaping from the territories where they could be prosecuted, all States should adopt legislation and measures to ensure accountability.  As a State party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Nigeria contributed to the evolution of universal jurisdiction in criminal matters and has also enacted national laws to combat impunity, she said.  Nevertheless, the principle should be used as a last resort.  States should not assume jurisdiction prematurely if there is a possibility of cooperating with the State that has national jurisdiction.  Further, the principle must not be used by stronger countries to force their domestic legal systems on less endowed countries through deprivation of the latter’s prosecutorial authority, she stressed. 

ABDULAZIZ M. ALWASIL (Saudi Arabia), underlining the need to fight impunity, welcomed ongoing efforts to study the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction.  This will allow for its practical implementation against the backdrop of clear standards, rules and mechanisms that determine the crimes for which the principle can be invoked.  It is also important to respect the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, particularly the sovereignty of States and the immunity of their officials.  He voiced his support for measures to achieve justice in line with national law and the international conventions to which it has acceded.  He also called on all Member States to review this item further to explore ways to implement the principle of universal jurisdiction in line with international law and the Charter to achieve the common goal of fighting impunity.

HUSSEIN ATHMAN KATTANGA (United Republic of Tanzania), associating himself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the politicization of universal jurisdiction at the expense of State sovereignty should be avoided.  Welcoming the decision to establish a Working Group on the principle, he reiterated his country’s support for universal jurisdiction in fighting impunity and punishing perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  However, he expressed concern about the principle’s ad hoc and arbitrary application towards African leaders, emphasizing that such application should be consistent with international law.  Reaffirming the United Republic of Tanzania’s support for the rule-based international order, he underscored the need to define universal jurisdiction and the rules of its application to avoid selectivity.  In this regard, he called on Member States to exercise flexibility to provide a sound basis for a legal and systemic framework, which adheres to the dictates of the Charter, as well as principles and norms of customary international law. 

PHAM NHA (Viet Nam), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, underscored that universal jurisdiction must be applied in line with international law.  This includes the principle of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in the domestic affairs, as well as full respect for the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction.  The principle’s expansion beyond the most serious international crimes could question its legitimacy.  It should only be invoked by States in circumstances where the alleged perpetrator is present in its territory, but only after having first consulted with the State where the crime occurred, as well as the State of nationality of that person about the possibility of extraditing him or her to those States for prosecution, subject to the principle of dual criminality.  As the principle is important to combat international crimes and effectively address impunity, Viet Nam has revised its Penal Code to allow universal jurisdiction for certain crimes, she said.  

TIÉMOKO MORIKO (Côte d’Ivoire), associating himself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, recalled that this issue was included on the General Assembly’s agenda due to the African Group’s initiative.  This was to enable States to prosecute piracy, slavery, torture, genocide and crimes against humanity, regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators.  In raising this question to the Assembly, the Group hoped to contribute to combating impunity while also expressing concern over the arbitrary application of this principle — particularly with regard to African Heads of State.  “The African Group’s position has not changed,” he noted, calling for the application of universal jurisdiction in line with international law.  Such application must afford priority to the jurisdiction of States on whose territory crimes were allegedly committed, as this venue lends itself to the investigation of such acts.  It is only in a situation where a State is unwilling or unable to prosecute that a third State or competent court can be seized of the case, he added.

GERALDO SARANGA (Mozambique), associating himself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that consent and cooperation, if regulated within the multilateral system, can help to limit excessive abuse and misuse of universal jurisdiction.  This principle should be complementary to a country’s national jurisdiction and should not be applied in a manner inconsistent with international law, he noted, stressing that Mozambique’s criminal jurisdiction is sufficiently comprehensive to prevent impunity for nationals and foreigners on the country’s territory or abroad.  Moreover, its legal framework on international legal and judicial cooperation — in the context of mutual legal assistance — does not allow impunity for crimes subject to universal jurisdiction.  Emphasizing that the selective use and manipulation of this principle by some Member States is not acceptable, he pointed out that while the States’ practice on the use and application of universal jurisdiction is not uniform, there seems to be enough common ground for consensus.  “Dialogue must, therefore, continue at the level of the Sixth Committee and on the level of the Working Group in search of an acceptable definition of universal jurisdiction,” he emphasized. 

SCOTT TAN (Singapore), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that universal jurisdiction is not and should not be the primary basis for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by States.  It should only be invoked in situations where no State is able or willing to exercise jurisdiction, including the territoriality and nationality principles.  The principle’s scope should pertain to grave crimes to which its applicability would be appropriate, as per the general agreement of the international community.  There is also a distinction between the exercise of universal jurisdiction as a principle of customary international law, on the one hand, and the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to a treaty obligation to extradite or prosecute by international tribunals constituted under specific treaty regimes, on the other. More so, the principle cannot be applied in isolation from, or to the exclusion of, other applicable principles of international law, he said.

KHALID LAHSAINI (Morocco) emphasized that, while the exercise of universal jurisdiction can deter the commission of serious international crimes and fight impunity, “it is key to recall the complexity and sensitivity of this principle”.  Like other international principles and rules, universal jurisdiction can be misused for political reasons and, to prevent such abuse, the sovereignty of States — especially in the context of judicial matters — must be respected.  While Moroccan criminal law is based on the jurisdictional bases of territoriality and personality, Morocco has adopted a specific approach regarding the competence of national courts in the context of crimes committed abroad.  This ensures that national courts can consider crimes perpetrated by Moroccans, wherever they are.  He also reported that his country has adopted the principle of universal jurisdiction in the context of terrorism, noting that national courts can prosecute persons perpetrating such acts regardless of nationality.

CATHERINE NYABOKE NYAKOE (Kenya), associating herself with the African Group and the Non‑Aligned Movement, said that jurisdiction for grave international crimes does not stop at the national level but transcends into international levels out of necessity.  In this regard, the unity of universal jurisdiction for such crimes must be within a clear scope and application exercised in tandem with other deterrent mechanisms.  “We must guard against the arbitrary invocation of universal jurisdiction creating space for wanton abuse of legal and judicial processes in pursuit of narrow political interests,” she stressed, noting that States must be guided by the principle of complementarity in seeking accountability for the most serious crimes.  Underlining the importance of consistency of this principle’s application within a set out conceptual framework, she said that it should take into account the complexities and realities of global democracies.  In this context, she reiterated that Heads of States and Governments must be accorded requisite international law immunities as far as universal jurisdiction is concerned.

EDA GÜÇ (Türkiye) underscored the subsidiary nature of universal jurisdiction in relation to other principles, including territoriality and active and passive personality.  While it may serve as an effective mechanism in specific contexts, it is imperative to heed the broad and legitimate concerns expressed by many delegations regarding its scope and potential for misuse.  If used for political purposes, the principle can erode human rights, disrupt international social order as well as infringe upon sovereignty and equality of States, she warned.  Universal jurisdiction is embedded in Türkiye’s domestic legislation, allowing the country’s courts to exercise, subject to strict criteria, jurisdiction over certain serious crimes irrespective of the location of the crime or of the perpetrator’s nationality.  The country is also State party to numerous treaties encompassing provisions on the “prosecute or extradite” principle, which offers an alternative path to ensure accountability for serious international crimes, she said. 

KYAW MOE TUN (Myanmar) said that the exercise of universal jurisdiction is important — “sometimes necessary” — when States are unable or unwilling to conduct credible prosecutions for serious crimes, or when the domestic rule of law has been destroyed and widespread impunity is not addressed by competent international bodies.  He stressed that, based on Myanmar’s continued experience, his delegation strongly supports the application of universal jurisdiction. Detailing the “campaign of brutal violence” conducted by the illegal military junta since the 2021 coup, he recalled the most recent “inhumane massacre” that killed 30 civilians in a camp for the internally displaced in Laiza.  He underscored that, in Myanmar, there is no environment for credible investigations into the allegations of serious international crimes under the junta, which has destroyed the rule of law.  “Subsequently, military impunity is widespread,” he reported, expressing support for any good-faith exercise of universal jurisdiction to hold the junta accountable for past and ongoing atrocities.

Mr. ALBLOOSHI (United Arab Emirates), noting that universal jurisdiction must be limited to specific crimes, called for non-politicization of this principle, whether it is used against Heads of State and Government or senior officials who enjoy immunity.  Stressing that countries should enhance their judicial cooperation to prevent impunity, he also emphasized that States should conclude conventions in this regard.  He further reported that the United Arab Emirates enacted Federal Law 39/2006 on international cooperation in criminal cases and has concluded several conventions and agreements with different States on judicial assistance in criminal cases, as well as agreements on extradition and transfer of sentenced persons. Reiterating that his country will continue to engage on this item to understand the points of convergence and divergence of legal systems on universal jurisdiction, he said that this will eventually help to reach the desired outcome in administering international justice.  `

RIYADH KHADDOUR (Syria), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that political motives and limitations stand behind the application of universal jurisdiction.  Subject to interests, countries tend to apply it in some cases, while refraining from doing so in other instances.  Trials have become limited to individuals whose prosecution does not entail a high political cost at the international level or cases that would bring benefits to the State exercising universal jurisdiction.  Moreso, the vagueness of the “unwilling or unable” term constitutes a danger, as it entails granting right to a State to decide on another State’s unwillingness or inability to prosecute.  In its current form, the universal jurisdiction principle does not meet the minimum global rule of law conditions.  He noted that it may be more useful to refocus on the principle’s applicability to cases that have international consensus, such as piracy crimes, genocide, trafficking in persons and slavery.

MOHAMED FAIZ BOUCHEDOUB (Algeria), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, emphasized that the primary responsibility to investigate international crimes and prosecute their perpetrators lies with the State where the crime was committed or to which the perpetrator belongs.  Therefore, universal jurisdiction can only be invoked when the State that should exercise national jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to do so.  Further, any arbitrary implementation of the principle must be avoided, as selectivity or political manipulation in this context will undermine the credibility of international efforts to achieve justice and fight impunity.  It is clear from previous debates that the main issue warranting discussion in the Sixth Committee is that Member States “do not have the same legal understanding” of this principle, the crimes for which it can be invoked or the relationship between the principle and that of the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction.

MERON HABTE ESSAIAS (Eritrea), associating herself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the application of universal jurisdiction should be in conformity with the enshrined principles of sovereign and diplomatic immunities as provided for under customary international law as well as general principles of sovereignty.  She reiterated her concerns regarding the manner in which this principle’s application has been sought to be “used and abused” by foreign courts, noting that it is illegal and unacceptable that certain States have been invoking criminal justice mechanisms to pursue their interests while evading accountability for crimes allegedly perpetrated by their nationals in other countries.  “This approach epitomizes the double standards and selectivity in the application of international justice,” she stressed, emphasizing that — as highlighted in the African Union model on universal jurisdiction — such abuse of the principle must be rectified against the principle of State sovereignty. In this regard, she called for a cautious approach in defining the scope and application of universal jurisdiction.

LOUREEN O. A. SAYEJ, an observer for the State of Palestine, underscored that the Palestinian people are starving to death, and are being denied water, medicine, electricity, fuel and food, all while being savagely bombed, besieged, displaced and killed in full view of the world.  Since the previous Saturday, Israel has killed over 2,800 Palestinians, including over 1,030 children — one every 15 minutes.  Fifty families were wiped out from the family registry, as Israel dropped over 6,000 bombs.  It has not even spared the families fleeing to safety.  In light of that, she recalled the words of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 that, under the fog of war, Israel has already carried out mass ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.  Recalling statements by Israel’s high-level officials, she asked:  “How can such dehumanizing language and a publicly-stated policy of collective punishment and indiscriminate killing by an occupying Power and its officials be justified?”  Only unhinged racism allows Palestinians to be considered less human, she stressed.  As the world still awaits clear calls to stop the massacres and as the humanitarian and health systems crumble, the worst is yet to come.  “Israeli impunity […] is what allowed the recurrence of crimes against our people,” she said. 

PIERRE APRAXINE, observer for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), underlined States’ responsibility to investigate war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, to prosecute the suspects.  In addition to jurisdiction over crimes committed on a State’s territory or by its nationals, the exercise of universal jurisdiction over war crimes — no matter the perpetrator or location — can serve as an effective mechanism to ensure accountability and limit impunity.  Noting that States are using the principle to effectively address impunity gaps for serious violations of international humanitarian law perpetrated beyond their borders, he emphasized that such efforts send an important message to victims and survivors that accountability is not just an aspirational goal, but a tangible commitment by the international community.  While States may attach conditions to the application of universal jurisdiction, he stressed that these must be intended to increase efficacy and predictability, “not to unnecessarily restrict the prospects for international justice”.

Right of Reply

The representative of Israel, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said:  “I do not blame the Palestinian delegate, even as she uses known hateful and anti-Semitic tropes and nuances, which have been used against the Jewish people for generations.  She fears for her people under the rule of Hamas.”  The people of Gaza have been a consistent victim of this terrorist organization that takes away their money and uses it to fund terrorism, among other things.  “We feel for every Palestinian under the rule of Hamas.  We feel for every civilian death in our region,” she stressed, expressing regret that she has not heard similar sentiments along with an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas from the Palestinian delegate.

The observer for the State of Palestine said that the Israeli delegate demonstrated how it is possible to rationalize barbarism, accusing Palestine of anti-Semitism.  Israel, as an occupying Power, is denying the applicability of international humanitarian law.  The statement of its delegate is an extension of the dehumanization of the Palestinian people that have suffered for 75 years under a system of apartheid that sustains all the violence.  This must come to an end, she said.  If one cannot recognize the humanity of 2 million besieged and bombed people and rationalizes such savagery, there are no other words to be said, she stated.

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 

KATHRYN SABO (Canada), Chair of the fifty-sixth session of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), presented the Commission’s report on its work during that session (document A/78/17).  She reported that the Commission adopted four texts in the context of investor-State dispute settlement reform, two of which concern the use of mediation for resolving investment disputes.  As mediation is underutilized for the settlement of such disputes, both of these texts aim to promote its use and facilitate the amicable settlement of investment disputes.  The other two texts contain key obligations for adjudicators involved in investor-State dispute settlement — reinforcing their duties of independence and impartiality; expanding disclosure requirements; and introducing rules for situations in which an adjudicator functions as counsel in another proceeding involving similar legal issues.

The Commission adopted a guide on access to credit for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, she continued. That text examines regulatory and policy measures that can help reduce barriers to accessing credit and, importantly, further recognizes that such enterprises owned by women often face higher barriers than those owned by men.  Thus, the text recommends that requirements for accessing credit should not discriminate against potential borrowers based on their gender.  In addition, UNCITRAL adopted a guidance text concerning early dismissal, which aims to assist arbitration practitioners and users in understanding the discretionary power of arbitral tribunals. The Commission also took note of the progress made by its six Working Groups during the last cycle and finalized their work programmes, she said.

On future work not assigned to any Working Group, she said that UNCITRAL took note of activities undertaken to further advance work on the impact of COVID‑19 on international trade law.  It also requested further work relating to voluntary carbon credits; legal issues relating to the use of distributed ledger systems in trade; and dispute resolution in the digital economy. Turning to UNCITRAL’s non-legislative activities, she spotlighted milestones reached in the implementation of formal agreements with Governments; increased engagement with academic partners; the greater use of videoconferences and webinars to increase interest in UNCITRAL’s work; and the issuance of three new e‑learning modules on mediation, public-private partnerships and commercial arbitration.  The Commission also noted progress made towards rejuvenating the “Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts” system, she reported.

She went on say that the Commission was informed during its fifty‑sixth session that its Secretariat had incurred costs for the livestreaming of sessions, which was not included in UNCITRAL’s regular budget.  However, there was strong support for this practice to continue, as it allows for inclusivity and transparency, and leads to broader participation by subject matter experts in real-time.  The Commission, therefore, requested that efforts be made to continue livestreaming UNCITRAL sessions within existing resources.  She also said that the Commission heard a proposal for streamlining UNCITRAL omnibus resolutions and requested an open, flexible intersessional consultative process among Member States to develop guidelines in this regard. Thanking the Sixth Committee for its continued support and expressions of satisfaction for UNCITRAL’s work, she voiced hope that efforts by the Commission to streamline future omnibus resolutions “will be supported by this Committee in due course”.

ANNA JOUBIN-BRET, Director and Secretary of UNCITRAL, International Trade Law Division, said that the Commission’s next session will take place in New York along with the first part of the Working Groups.  Turning to the forthcoming topics, she recalled that Working Group III started unrolling the report elements, which will be delivered in the form of a multilateral convention.  In addition, in 2024, UNCITRAL plans to establish an advisory centre for developing countries and issue a set of guidelines on dispute prevention, she reported, also spotlighting a number of texts for adoption on digital trade and the finalization of the Secretariat’s stocktaking on dispute resolution in the digital economy, among other things. 

Calling attention to the collaboration with the Government of China, which hosted the signing of the United Nations Convention on the International Effects of Judicial Sales of Ships, also known as the Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships, she noted that the treaty opened for signature on 5 September 2023.  Welcoming the European Union’s continued support that allows the Secretariat to operate, she said she will attend the UNCITRAL Latin American and Caribbean Days in Panama and El Salvador and will visit the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ghana in the framework of the UNCITRAL Days in Africa.  She further said that holding some informal meetings exclusively in French served as a good way to involve Francophone countries’ participation and helped to strengthen inclusion.  Noting that the current UNCITRAL Chair is one of the few women who have chaired the Commission, she said that the Secretariat was very proud of her leadership and the smooth conduct of UNCITRAL's work. 

THOMAS RAMOPOULOS, representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, expressed support for the work of Working Group V on a toolkit on civil asset tracing and recovery in cross-border insolvencies and its efforts to find global solutions for rules on applicable law in cross-border insolvency proceedings.  Also highlighting the importance of Working Group III on the reform of investor-State dispute settlement, he welcomed the finalization and adoption of the respective texts that are the first outcome of UNCITRAL’s reform efforts.  Moreso, the Code of Conduct for Judges in International Investment Dispute Resolution is the first part of the ongoing work on a multilateral investment court, he said, voicing support for the texts’ adoption by the General Assembly. Spotlighting the significant work to complete the reform process started in 2017, he underlined the importance of the Working Group finalizing the draft provisions on an advisory centre on international investment law to be presented to the Commission in 2024.

He also expressed satisfaction with the inter-sessional meetings, recalling that the sixth session of Working Group III took place in Singapore in September.  These meetings — also available for online participation — provide delegates with a unique opportunity to engage and exchange ideas and provide a “food for thought” for future sessions.  To enable the participation of all stakeholders in the Working Group III discussions, the European Union, France and Germany made contributions to UNCITRAL’s Travel Fund in 2023, he reported, encouraging other Members to make similar contributions.  The bloc has also made contributions towards the operation of the Transparency Registry and the promotion of the UNCITRAL transparency standards, he said, adding that the Union will contribute additional funds that will allow the continuation of the operation of the Transparency Registry until June 2024 and beyond.

JÖRUNDUR VALTÝSSON (Iceland), also speaking for Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, commended the close relationship between UNCITRAL and other key international organizations active in the field of international commercial and trade law.  The Commission and its Secretariat have carried out work flexibly and in constructive spirit, he noted, pointing to several adopted texts, including those on investor-State dispute settlement, as well as early dismissal and preliminary determination for inclusion in the UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings.  Given the importance of warehouse receipts to agriculture and food security and their use in supply and value chains, he spotlighted the aim of Working Group I to develop a modern and predictable legal regime.  He also praised the progress achieved by Working Group II on technology-related dispute resolution and adjudication and the work of Working Group III on developing texts addressing investor-State dispute settlement.

Also noting that Working Group IV has commenced its work related to the digital economy, he called attention to Working Group V’s focus on two important topics, including the applicable law in insolvency proceedings and civil asset tracing and recovery.  Commending the reintroduction of transport law into the Commission’s agenda, he said that it is challenging to negotiate new rules in this area already covered by numerous conventions, other instruments and practices of different modes of transport, trade and finance.  While the legal framework should enable the flow of electronic transport documents in a multimodal context, it is essential to consider the possible risks. Important consultations are also underway regarding areas in which international trade law can effectively support the achievement of climate action goals as well as the scope and value of legal harmonization in those areas, he reported. 

ELIZABETH MARYANNE GROSSO (United States) welcomed UNCITRAL’s efforts to retain hybrid meeting formats, which will facilitate the widest possible engagement with the Commission’s work.  Calling the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Investment Dispute Resolution “a real achievement”, she noted that the Code addresses two key areas of concern, namely, that it sets out limits on arbitrators serving in multiple roles and requires broad disclosure of circumstances that could give rise to a conflict of interest.  This will help address concerns about the legitimacy of the investor-State dispute settlement process and resulting awards. Among other points, she said her delegation looks forward to upcoming work on adjudication and high-tech disputes and the results of the stock-taking exercise on dispute resolution in the digital economy.  Further, she emphasized that her delegation expects “substantial progress” on projects relating to the use of artificial intelligence and automation in contracting, data provision contracts and negotiable cargo documents.  As well, she looked forward to UNCITRAL’s future work on voluntary carbon credits, she said.

MAXIMILIAN GORKE (Austria), associating himself with the European Union, said that that the development of international trade law through the modernization and harmonization of international business rules is significant for the private sector.  Underscoring the importance of all the Commission’s member States participating in deliberations, he pointed to Austria’s contribution to the UNCITRAL Trust Fund to provide travel assistance for developing counties.  He particularly welcomed the progress of Working Group III, resulting in the adoption of a Code of Conduct for Arbitrators, a Code of Conduct for Judges in International Investment Dispute Resolution and Model Provisions on Mediation and Guidelines on Mediation for International Investment Disputes.  Pointing out that small and medium-sized enterprises are the “backbone of Austria’s economy” and a source of jobs and innovation, he welcomed the adoption of recommendations on accessing credit for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises.  “It is our honour to be a member of UNCITRAL and host its Secretariat in Vienna,” he said, reiterating his support to the Commission’s mandate. 

PAVEL EVSEENKO (Belarus) noted that the texts of conventions and other documents that UNCITRAL is crafting strengthen the legal foundations for international commercial and other activities.  He drew attention to the Model Provisions as well as the Guidelines for Mediation, developed by Working Group III on possible reform of the investor-State dispute settlement system.  However, though the UNCITARL Code of Conduct for Judges in Resolving International Investment Disputes was endorsed in principle, there remains a lack of consensus within the Commission on creating a standing judicial mechanism.  Its adoption should not be mistakenly perceived as confirmation of readiness for reforming the dispute settlement system based on one of the specific options. Its reform on electronic trade and digitalization, insolvency legislation and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises are of greatest interest, he said, adding his support for UNCITRAL’s efforts to assist States in adopting its texts and developing relevant online learning materials. 

JOSE JUAN HERNANDEZ CHAVEZ (Chile) welcomed UNCITRAL’s hybrid meetings, which guarantee greater participation by experts from developing countries and allow for a more inclusive debate.  Underlining the importance of the Commission’s adoption of recommendations relating to credit access for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, he cited World Bank figures that such enterprises account for 90 per cent of all businesses and provide 50 per cent of global employment.  Further, such enterprises constitute a major source of job creation in their respective countries and promote equitable economic growth.  Turning to the Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Investment Disputes, he welcomed that the text addresses criticisms of the system for investor-State dispute settlement by promoting arbitrators’ integrity and reducing potential conflicts of interest.  He also spotlighted the draft model law on warehouse receipts — developed jointly by UNCITRAL and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law — as an example of the potential inherent in cooperation between technical teams.

BAHRAM HEIDARI (Iran), while noting with appreciation the finalization of the texts prepared by Working Group III, said that the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Judges in International Investment Dispute Resolution and its Commentary is premature.  He also welcomed the development of the guide on access to credit for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises.  Recalling that the Commission held a colloquium on climate change, he encouraged it to take a very cautious approach to examine the appropriateness of every step.  The adverse effects of unilateral coercive measures on international trade and on climate change need to be addressed, he stressed, emphasizing that persons and companies within the sanctions-affected territories do not have access to technology, equipment or funding to address that phenomenon.  He also spotlighted the side event co-organized by Pakistan during the 2023 Commission’s session on “Quantum of damages in investor-State dispute settlement; perspective of developing countries”.  UNCITRAL should make the best use of available financial resources and have due regard for a State’s specific needs and challenges. 

AZELA GUERRERO ARUMPAC-MARTE (Philippines) welcomed the work of UNICTRAL in facilitating fair, stable and predictable legal frameworks.  This includes the finalization and adoption of texts related to investor-State dispute settlement reform.  She also commended the endorsement of recommendations on access to credit for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises as well as the approval, in principle, of the Commentary to the recommendations.  Praising progress achieved in the Working Groups, she also welcomed the UNCITRAL Colloquium on Climate Change and the Law of International Trade held this year.  Also commendable is the expansion of engagement with academia targeted at young researchers and practitioners in international trade law, including through the UNCITRAL Asia-Pacific Days.  She further expressed appreciation to UNCITRAL’s Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific and to the Republic of Korea for supporting the Centre, which has been instrumental in raising awareness and building capacity in the region on international trade law.

MELINA LITO (United Kingdom) reported that, following a public consultation, her country signed the Singapore Convention on Mediation on 3 May 2023.  This demonstrates the United Kingdom’s commitment to promoting mediation as an effective dispute resolution method; maintaining its position as a centre for international dispute resolution; and building on its history of leadership in private international law.  Turning to the efforts of UNCITRAL’s Working Groups, she welcomed progress made, inter alia, to find consensus regarding applicable law in situations of insolvency.  She also welcomed continuing work to produce a “toolbox” States can use to trace assets dissipated in attempts to avoid detection and recovery. On UNCITRAL’s work relating to climate change, she said the same would benefit from a targeted focus; should not duplicate the work of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law; and should be delivered within a timeframe that reflects the urgency of the climate crisis.

ABDULLAH IBRAHIM ABDELHAMID ALSAYED ATTELB (Egypt), commending the progress of Working Group III on investor-State dispute settlement, said he looked forward to more discussions relating to the observer status of international investment law and whether it is possible to establish a permanent court for investor-State dispute resolution.  He also spotlighted the efforts of Working Group VI on negotiable transport and cargo documents that would eventually affect credit and insurance for goods transported by railway or by land, emphasizing that this will positively reflect on the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement.  Also welcoming the initiatives that address climate change-related challenges, he stressed that Member States must be meticulous and look into this discussion. He said that expanding UNCITRAL’s mandate in this regard might cause confusion and undermine the efforts of international law relating to climate change, while the multiplicity of legal frameworks on this phenomenon might raise coordination questions and create conflicting priorities. 

Mr. TAN (Singapore) noted that the adoption of the mediation documents sends a strong signal that this process is a complementary rather than merely supplementary means for the settlement of international investment disputes.  It is efficient and affordable, preserves the relationship between the disputing parties and encourages non-zero-sum outcomes.  His country, as an international dispute resolution hub, promotes its use in all disputes, he added.  The mediation texts build on the Commission’s previous success with the Singapore Convention on Mediation, he said, commending its latest ratifications. Singapore was also one of the 15 original signatories of the recent Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships.  The country continues to be a strong supporter of the broader work of the Commission.  This year, it co-organized — with the Commission’s Secretariat — the UNCITRAL Academy as part of the Singapore Convention Week 2023 and the Sixth Intersessional Meeting of Working Group III.

Mr. SANCHEZ CORDERO (Mexico), spotlighting structural reform of the system for investor-State dispute settlement, said that the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Arbitrators represents significant progress in addressing an identified lack of impartiality and independence in this area.  He also underlined the need to “introduce issues relating to new realities” in electronic commerce and the evolution of artificial intelligence, and urged that efforts continue on these topics.  UNCITRAL’s work to analyse the intersection between existing instruments relating to international trade law and action to combat and mitigate the effects of climate change is welcome.  Additionally, he expressed support for joint efforts undertaken by UNCITRAL and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law.  Further, he commended the establishment of a taxonomy to address those issues that relate to international trade law, international private law and unform law, which facilitates the development of an approach for reducing carbon emissions.

ZHAO YANRUI (China) said that her Government has been actively supporting UNCITRAL by engaging in in-depth thematic discussions and rulemaking, noting that its fifty-sixth session was pragmatic, efficient and fruitful. She endorsed the Commission’s report and commended the Secretariat’s work to that end.  She further recalled that on 7 December 2022 the General Assembly adopted the Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships and mandated the signing ceremony to be organized by China in Beijing in 2023.  With the support of various parties, this event took place on 5 September with the participation of 34 countries, 15 of which have signed the Convention.  “China appreciated the support of all parties for the signing ceremony and welcomes and encourages more countries and regional economic integration organizations to consider joining the Convention,” she stressed, reiterating that her country will — as always — prioritize and engage in UNCITRAL’s work to harmonize and modernize international trade law.

KEKE MANTSHO ANNASTACIA MOTSEPE (South Africa) said that her country’s economic success depends heavily on international investment.  In 2015, South Africa adopted a law on the promotion and protection of investment, enacted as part of an overhaul of the country’s regulatory framework for foreign investment.  It strikes a balance between the rights and obligations of investors and the State.  The law affirms South Africa’s commitment to foster an open and transparent environment for foreign investment in line with international human rights law and sustainable development.  She also noted that the adoption of the two UNCITRAL Codes of Conduct will improve fairness, objectivity, and transparency in legal proceedings.  While welcoming the UNCITRAL Colloquium on climate change, she reiterated that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the most suitable forum to discuss all issues related to this matter, including the development of rules, regulations and laws.

Ms. NHA (Viet Nam) welcomed UNCITRAL’s work in formulating model laws, which takes into account cutting-edge topics and technological advancement.  She reported that her country, based on one of UNCITRAL’s model laws, promulgated an amended law governing electronic transactions.  She also spotlighted the Commission’s work on investor-State dispute settlement, pointing out that discussions in the relevant Working Group aim to not only address reform of that system, but also to foster responsible investment and advance sustainable development.  Acknowledging the role played by UNCITRAL’s Secretariat in facilitating the Commission’s work, she encouraged the Secretariat to continue its efforts to disseminate and raise awareness of UNCITRAL texts, along with providing assistance to States in applying the same.  She added that her country looks forward to continuing its collaboration with UNCITRAL to promote fair and equitable world trade and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Mr. MORA FONSECA (Cuba) said that the Commission’s work should be adapted to the dynamics of commercial activities, since the speed of trade exceeds codification efforts.  Noting that the COVID‑19 pandemic and unilateral coercive measures had negative consequences on world trade, he said that both factors have hampered trade between States on a more global scale than in previous years.  Commending the Commission’s work in establishing regulations and facilitating safe exchange of goods and services, he also acknowledged its progress during its work period in July in completing and adopting four texts. Tackling climate change is a priority for macroeconomic and trade policies, he stressed, welcoming the Colloquium on Climate Change and the Law of International Trade.  This Colloquium is a step forward towards the effective achievement of climate action goals and legal harmonization in these areas, he asserted. 

LIGIA LORENA FLORES SOTO (El Salvador) underscored that UNCITRAL significantly contributes to strengthening the legal framework pertaining to international trade.  El Salvador recently signed one of the instruments stemming from the Commission’s work — the Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships.  She called for the promotion of efforts to sign or adhere to that treaty to strengthen international legal practice on this issue and, in turn, to promote international trade.  She also welcomed the dissemination of knowledge and practices on international trade law in her region by the secretariat of the Commission, in particular through UNCITRAL Latin America and Caribbean Days that include practitioners and academics, as well as students.  El Salvador will also organize one of those days devoted to the implementation of its national law on electronic trade and its compatibility with the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, she reported.

YANINEE NACHOM (Thailand), highlighting the importance of the progressive harmonization of international trade law, reported that her country is working to build closer economic ties with its trading partners and is aspiring to become a centre for commerce in the region. Thailand is home to numerous micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, and UNCITRAL’s guide on credit access for such enterprises will help strengthen and diversify the economy by facilitating access to much-needed capital.  She also welcomed the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Provisions on Mediation and Guidelines on Mediation for International Investment Disputes, along with the Code of Conduct for Arbitrators, which will pave the way for a more efficient and balanced system for investor-State dispute settlement. Further, as climate change is one of Thailand’s most pressing concerns, she expressed support for UNCITRAL’s exploration of this issue.  The establishment of an advisory centre on international investment law should be a top priority for the relevant Working Group, she added.

ENRICO MILANO (Italy), associating himself with the European Union, said that investor-State dispute settlement reform is critical to the future governance of international trade and investment law.  Recalling that Italy has taken an active part in the negotiations, he said he was pleased with the successful completion of the work on this topic.  This will contribute to reducing the legal obstacles faced by small and medium-sized enterprises in international, regional and national markets throughout their life cycle.  Further, he welcomed the mandate on warehouse receipts assigned to Working Group I and the progress made by Working Group VI in drafting texts on data provision contracts and principles of automated contracting.  He also encouraged UNCITRAL to continue expanding its cooperation with the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law and the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which, over time, has produced positive results in several areas. 

Ms. BHAT (India) recalled that her country recently hosted the second UNCITRAL South Asia Conference, which was the first in-person flagship event organized by the Commission in the region since the COVID‑19 pandemic.  The Conference attracted over 1,800 participants, bringing together global and regional legal and judicial experts to offer key insights into commercial law topics.  Welcoming the draft guide on access to credit for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, she noted that it could assist States in creating a sound legal framework that promotes access to credit for small businesses.  The draft legislative guide on investment dispute prevention and mitigation should be revised as a non‑prescriptive document. To that end, the Commission’s secretariat should continue to compile information on best practices while avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach.  She also reiterated the importance of technical assistance to developing countries, in particular on the adoption and use of texts adopted by the Commission. 

MARVIN IKONDERE (Uganda) welcomed the adoption of UNCITRAL’s Model Provisions on Mediation and Guidelines on Mediation for International Investment Disputes, calling on the Secretary-General to publish such provisions — including electronically — in the six official languages of the United Nations and to disseminate them to Governments and other interested bodies. He also expressed support for the Commission’s engagement with academic partners geared towards young researchers and practitioners in international trade law.  On that, he welcomed the 2022 launch of the inaugural UNCITRAL Days in Africa series, which offers an “incredible opportunity” that can help African States develop the legal infrastructure that will allow them to benefit from the digital economy.  Areas of particular importance, he added, include the need to establish a harmonized legal framework for fair, efficient settlement of international investment disputes and the need to promote transparency, accountability and good governance in the international commercial law framework.

FAISAL GH A. T. M. ALENEZI (Kuwait), spotlighting projects aimed at turning his country into a financial and commercial international hub, said that his Government has adopted a partnership programme between the public and private sectors.  The Committee of Coordination — created in 2014 — has been taking part in assessments of all partnership projects and conducting financial and technical assessments, he noted, also highlighting projects relating to energy, water, education, public health and transportation, among others, that are based on cooperation with international companies.  Also underlining Kuwait’s goal of achieving a “quantum leap” in electronic law, he said that it has been among the leading States in adopting digital technologies.  Noting that the country is implementing an international financial, economic and trade system and is preparing to adopt modern technologies, he said it has modernized all Government services and e-commerce.  He also stressed that electronic laws will not bear fruit if Member States do not tackle cybercrime, pointing out that Kuwait has adopted legislation on preventing information crimes and established the National Center for Cybersecurity.

The representative of France, noting that her country pays particular attention to reform of the investor-State dispute settlement system, welcomed the tangible outputs of the Commission’s work in this field.  France is committed to ensuring that UNCITRAL’s endeavour continues within existing resources that are vital for Working Group III to finalize its task within a reasonable timeframe, she said.  She also commended UNCITRAL for extending the field of its activities to cover topics useful for the development of international trade, such as climate change and the digital economy.  The stocktaking exercise on the technology-related dispute resolution allowed for pinpointing emerging innovative and promising practices.  Turning to working methods, she reported that her country and Switzerland put forward an initiative to develop simple rules and criteria for remote consultations, which are being used more frequently since the COVID‑19 pandemic.  The challenges are the transparency of proceedings and respect for rules governing working languages, she noted. 

CHOI TAEEUN (Republic of Korea), stating that one of his country’s key policy goals is to improve laws and systems to meet the global standard, said Seoul has been enhancing cooperation with UNCITRAL through the Commission’s Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific.  He recalled that 2022 marked the tenth anniversary of the Centre’s establishment, welcoming its various activities to support public, private and civil-society initiatives designed to promote international trade and development.  To this end, the Government will continue providing the Centre with financial and human-resources support.  Further, he spotlighted the special session that UNCITRAL and his country’s Ministry of Justice will co-host in November 2023, which will aim to raise awareness regarding recent updates on the Commission’s work to reform the system for investor-State dispute settlement.  This meeting will provide an opportunity to share information and trends on new instruments completed by the relevant Working Group, he added.

PABLO AGUSTIN ESCOBAR ULLAURI (Ecuador), noting that UNCITRAL’s work facilitates economic cooperation among States on a basis of equality, equity, and common interest, said it also contributes to avoiding duplication of efforts between different organizations developing norms of international trade law.  He said he was pleased with the finalization and approval of the respective texts, emphasizing that the approval of these instruments is a fundamental contribution to accomplishing and fulfilling the mandate of Working Group III aiming to improve the system.  Also commending the finalization and approval of the recommendations for access for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises for credit, he said that this instrument would contribute to the development of national policies.  In addition, he encouraged UNCITRAL to continue providing technical assistance to States so they can contribute to the creation of internal capacity in international trade law in developing countries and underlined the importance of the Trust Fund in providing travel costs assistance for developing countries.

NAGANO SHUNSUKE (Japan) said that his country recently acceded to the Singapore Convention on Mediation.  Since Japan did not have legal frameworks for the enforcement of international settlement agreements, its nationals did not use mediation to resolve international commercial disputes to the same extent as arbitration.  He said that Japan will play a leading role in working toward increasing the number of parties to the Convention.  As the number of parties grows, the use of mediation for settling commercial disputes could be further promoted globally.  Drawing attention to the country’s project on stocktaking of developments in dispute resolution in the digital economy, he commended the Commission’s Secretariat for the extraordinary efforts undertaken to move the initiative forward.  He also reported that his country contributed the necessary funds to implement the project in its entirety for the second year and is ready to provide the funds for the third year as well. 

NUR AZURA BINTI ABD KARIM (Malaysia) said that UNCITRAL’s adopted instruments would serve as guidance for Member States, as well as facilitate international trade and investment procedures.  Acknowledging the efforts of Working Groups II and III in improving the dispute resolution mechanism and possibly establishing a standing multilateral mechanism for international investment disputes, she underlined the importance of addressing issues relating to the alternative dispute resolution, including the professionalism of the adjudicators and the issue of third-party funding.  Noting that the latter is an important avenue used by investors to cover the costs of arbitration to bring claims against host States, she called for increased transparency in how funding is managed.  She also pointed out that entities involved generally prefer not to disclose information on their role to the other parties to the dispute or to the arbitrators, underscoring the importance of regulating third-party funding. While Malaysia promotes fairness and justice, she emphasized that clear rules and procedures should be established to regulate such funding to minimize if not eliminate the risk of abuse.

KEVIN TIMOTHY MEAD (Canada) welcomed progress in UNCITRAL’s work on the reform of investor-State dispute settlement system.  The recommendations contained in the guide on access to credit for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises implement several Sustainable Development Goals by facilitating such access for women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs from disadvantaged groups.  Acknowledging progress on civil asset tracing and recovery tools and on the law applicable in insolvency proceedings, he also welcomed the efforts to develop a model law on warehouse receipts.  An important aspect of the latter is to provide a structure that will enable the use of electronic warehouse receipts in financing and trade.  He also expressed support for UNCITRAL’s work on a detailed study on the aspects of international trade law related to voluntary carbon credits.  The Commission should select topics that have well-defined legal problems and could benefit from a workable solution in a global context, he said. 

Ms. BOUZIANE (Morocco) said that investor-State dispute settlement reform will promote responsible international investment to combat fraudulent practices and ensure a fair and equitable system, affording equal protection to foreign investors and upholding the right of States to regulate this investment in their territory.  Noting that her country pins high hopes on these reforms, she noted that it has undertaken efforts in this regard, having also participated in many UNCITRAL sessions and Working Groups.  At the multilateral level, Morocco’s commitment is exemplified by its relevant national measures, including a structural diversified reform geared towards modernizing its legal framework and governing its economic sector relating to trade.  Emphasizing that the business climate needs to be underpinned by transparent, sustainable and robust frameworks, she highlighted the country’s legal reforms — specifically the investment reform — to ensure its “attractiveness” for international investors.  As a result, Morocco has been qualified as the highest-ranking country in Africa and the third highest ranking State in the Middle East and North Africa region, she said. 

Mr. KHOKAAR (Pakistan), noting that his country has been an active participant in the Commission’s proceedings, said that Working Group I reduced legal obstacles faced by micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular in developing economies.  Welcoming the adoption of documents developed by Working Group III, he said that the Code of Conduct will mitigate the concerns of developing countries pertaining to the composition of tribunals as well as overall fairness of the conduct of the proceedings.  The Working Group’s mandate to undertake reform of the investor-State dispute settlement system should encompass both procedural and substantial issues, with the most important issue being the size of damages in arbitral awards. During the fifty-sixth session, Pakistan organized a side event to shed light on that matter from the perspective of developing countries.  The ongoing cases could also be reviewed with a possibility of introducing a moratorium on awarding damages against States, he added. 

EVGENY A. SKACHKOV (Russian Federation) underscored the need for adopting a balanced approach relating to the existing instruments, taking into consideration regional peculiarities and inter-State legal relationships.  Pointing to the joint initiative — put forward by Armenia, the Russian Federation and Viet Nam — he reported that the Secretariat came up with a package of measures supporting international trade.  He expressed hope that the Commission will be able to influence the fight against the negative repercussions of the COVID‑19 pandemic, also noting that will create a more stable legal environment for its development in the future.  Stressing that UNCITRAL’s consideration of climate issues should be undertaken solely under its mandate and within a framework of existing international systems of institutions and regulations, he emphasized that such work should result in recommendatory documents only.

Ms. SABO, expressing appreciation for the support UNCITRAL receives from the Sixth Committee, underscored that all the comments made by the delegations have been well noted.  With such continued support, the Commission will continue to deliver on its mandate and its work programme aimed at the harmonization of international trade law, she said. 

Requests for Observer Status

The Sixth Committee took up a resolution on the request for the observer status for the International Parliamentarians Congress in the General Assembly (document A/C.6/78/L.2).

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing the draft resolution, said that the International Parliamentarians Congress was established in 2019 by the Senate of Pakistan and represents a worldwide association of legislators working on climate change, human rights and peace and security.  “These focus areas resonate profoundly with the core objectives of the United Nations,” he emphasized, underscoring that the International Parliamentarians Congress aims to promote collaboration among individual parliamentarians by facilitating open dialogue and mutual understanding. 

It also serves as a platform for exchanging ideas and contributes to the development of policies, which address shared global challenges and common objectives, he continued, adding that, currently, it has 198 individual member parliamentarians from 52 countries. Granting the International Parliamentarians Congress observer status will bolster its international engagement and help it to build more robust relations with different stakeholders.  It would also stimulate the development of cooperative solutions to shared challenges, he asserted. 

The representative of India noted that the International Parliamentarians Congress is not an intergovernmental organization and does not meet the criteria stipulated by the relevant General Assembly resolution.  More so, as an observer status in the General Assembly was already granted to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, she asked what the added value of the proposed body would be. 

The representative of the United States recalled that in its decision 49/426 of 9 December 1994, the General Assembly decided to limit eligibility for observer status “to States and to those intergovernmental organizations whose activities cover matters of interest to the Assembly”.  Although she welcomed the goals of the International Parliamentarians’ Congress, she said it is not eligible for observer status because it is not an intergovernmental organization.  In particular, its membership is not made up of States but rather serves as a platform for individual members of national Parliaments.  Further, the entity was created by a resolution of the Senate of Pakistan and not as part of an international agreement between sovereign States.  While the United States expresses support for the organization’s objectives, it cannot support the request for observer status, she said.

The representative of Pakistan called for a consistent application of the General Assembly rules on the matter.  If the request for observer status is denied approval, Pakistan will launch a process of consultations to review the existing organizations’ observer status granted contrary to the rules cited by the representative of the United States, he said. 

The Sixth Committee then considered the request for observer status for the Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science and Culture in the General Assembly (document A/C.6/78/L.3). 

The representative of Argentina, presenting the draft resolution, said that the Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science and Culture — founded in 1949 under the name “Office for Education of Ibero-American States” — is intergovernmental in nature.  It was then decided to transform this organization into an intergovernmental body at the second Ibero-American Congress held in Quito, Ecuador.  It is currently made of 23 Ibero-American States and its governance is exercised through the three main bodies:  a general assembly, an executive board and a secretariat general. 

The headquarters of the secretariat general are in Madrid, while its offices are located in 19 Member States, she continued. The work of the organization is in keeping with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and with inclusive and renovated multilateralism.  If the observer status is granted, this entity could work more efficiently to achieve the implementation of the Global Goals through its broad knowledge and experience of more than 70 years of work in Latin America and share regional good practices, she said.