Sixth Committee Speakers, Debating Best Outcome for Draft Articles on Expulsion of Aliens, Seek Balance between State Sovereignty, Human Rights Protection
Delegates Conclude Consideration of International Law Commission Cluster 3, Special Charter Committee Report
As the Sixth Committee (Legal) today took up the topic expulsion of aliens, speakers debated the appropriate outcome of the International Law Commission’s draft articles, with many pointing to a required balance between State’s sovereign right to expel a person and protection of that person’s human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement.
Iran’s representative underscored the importance of the topic due to it being simultaneously concerned with the sovereign prerogative of States and their obligation to uphold the human rights of non-nationals in their territories. However, despite that, he said it was premature to convene a diplomatic conference on the elaboration of a convention.
Echoing that stance, the Netherlands also reported her delegation could not support a convention or any other form of codification based on the draft articles. Those texts, she pointed out, go beyond the currently applicable rules of international law on expulsion of aliens and are not in accordance with State practice.
In a similar vein, the United States, said that country’s delegate, “continues to question the wisdom and utility” of seeking to augment well-settled rules of law that exist in broadly ratified human rights and refugee conventions. These instruments already provide the legal basis for achieving the objectives of the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens.
Singapore’s representative, voicing concern of the lack of distinction in the draft articles and its commentaries between codification and progressive development, also reiterated his delegation’s opposition to the expanded principle of non-refoulement, adding that there is no customary international law where a State that has abolished the death penalty is obligated not to expel a person to another State where the death penalty may be imposed.
Taking a different stance, the representative of Belarus pointed out that the draft articles recommended for consideration in 2014 can provide a solid basis for finding an important equilibrium between respect for the rights and legitimate interests of persons under threat of expulsion and the right of expelling States to implement measures to protect sovereignty and national security.
Building on that, Mexico’s delegate said that each draft article is duly documented, with the accompanying commentaries providing greater context and background for each topic. As this agenda item remains undefined, she underscored that the Committee must address all products adopted by the International Law Commission with equal seriousness.
At the outset of the meeting, the Sixth Committee concluded its discussion of Cluster 3 of the International Law Commission’s report and, thereby, also its consideration of the report as a whole. (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3703.)
Nilüfer Oral (Türkiye), co-Chair of the International Law Commission, emphasized that the annual meetings of the Sixth Committee are very important for the Commission. Observing that the meetings took place in the challenging context of conflict in the world, she stressed that it is crucial the Commission and the Committee share a common language of international law and a common goal to ensure that international law is always at the core of their work.
Patrícia Galvão Teles (Portugal), co-Chair of the International Law Commission, spotlighting the high participation of delegations throughout the debates on all three Clusters, noted that there is more room to improve dialogue between the Commission and the Committee to better prepare for the annual debate. To that end, the virtual preparatory briefings, in May and September, seemed to have been very beneficial, she reported, adding: “And we hope this practice could be continued.”
Charles C. Jalloh (Sierra Leone), Special Rapporteur on the topic “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, also noted the high level of State participation, adding that it indicates great interest in the topic. Welcoming all comments, he emphasized that States are intended to be the primary beneficiaries of the Commission’s work and that constructive criticism has offered past rapporteurs the opportunity to strengthen their work. The same applies here, he declared.
The Sixth Committee (Legal) also finalized its consideration of the report of the 2023 session of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, with many speakers tackling the issue of sanctions. (For background, see Press Releases GA/L/3697.)
The representative of Nigeria stressed that sanctions should always be in line with the UN Charter in order to extract compliance with international obligation from a State rather than punish its population. She also underlined that the imposition of unilateral coercive measures goes against sovereign equality and international law.
Nevertheless, certain States, observed China’s representative, routinely resort to unilateral sanctions, causing humanitarian crises and other adverse effects. Given that sanctions are a means, not an end, any impact of such measures on the general public and third States merits due consideration.
Egypt’s delegate, recalling that his country has supported the Special Charter Committee’s efforts since its establishment by the 1975 General Assembly resolution, encouraged that Committee to assume an effective, active role, especially with regard to discussing different proposals relating to the peaceful settlement of disputes. This is especially important during this critical moment for the Middle East, he stated.
The Sixth Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, 6 October, to commence consideration of the report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country.
International Law Commission Cluster 3 Statements
JAMES WAWERU (Kenya), associating himself with the African Group and speaking on “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, noted that the Commission’s work on the topic will complement its earlier work. He also expressed hope that the topic will be brought to a successful conclusion, as it will have a significant impact on the development of international law.
Turning to “Other decisions and conclusion”, he said that his comments were driven by developments that occurred after the Sixth Committee had concluded its consideration of that topic. He noted the efforts of the Commission to improve its working methods, including to enhance its interaction with the Committee and other legal bodies. In that regard, he called for an in-depth introspection of the Committee’s consideration of the Commission’s report to “come up with practical and pragmatic solutions to improve our working methods so that we may revitalize what has become an annual ritualistic discussion of this agenda item”. He proposed that, to that end, the Bureau and States consider holding informal consultations in one of the current session’s reserved meetings. The rich discussion during the side event organized by the Center for International Law and Policy in Africa could form the basis for such consultations, he added.
ZACHARIE SERGE RAOUL NYANID (Cameroon), speaking on “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, said that the Commission lived up to its reputation for rigour with regard to the methodology adopted on this topic. Emphasizing that the text should take the form of draft conclusions, he pointed out that subsidiary means are key components of the legal system. He also said he agreed on the need to clarify these means for the determination of international law, which will provide rules for jurists in applying the law. In this regard, he stated that article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is appropriate. Also noting that decisions taken by national and regional tribunals may be relevant, he said they carry less weight than those rendered by international tribunals, especially those handed down in the countries of the Global South. He, thus, called for extending “this window” to all relevant jurisdictions, while also taking note of other subsidiary means, including unilateral acts of States and religious law. Urging the Commission to exercise caution regarding “soft law” to ensure greater diversity, he suggested it to pay attention to the issue of equity.
Turning to “Succession of States in respect of State responsibility”, he invited the Commission to continue working towards a consensus to ensure promising results on this sensitive, relevant issue. He urged it to focus on substance and not on the form of the work and avoid taking any “radical” breaks with its previous work. Noting that “we are a product of our past”, he recalled that his ancestors throughout the years have understood the value of patience and perseverance. In this regard, he cited an African proverb: “He who is not patient to have a child might marry a woman who is already pregnant.”
CLAUDINE BAILEY (Jamaica), speaking on “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, welcomed the Commission’s position that advisory opinions issued by the International Court of Justice can be considered as such. This is possible because the common-law principle of stare decisis is not applicable to the Court and, therefore, both its contentious and advisory opinions are placed on equal footing. Questioning whether the advisory opinions of the Caribbean Court of Justice could be contemplated in this context, she pointed out that this Court also has the jurisdiction to produce decisions in both contentious proceedings and in cases where an advisory opinion is requested. Noting the inclusion of several regional bodies in the annual report, she urged the Commission that the Caribbean Court of Justice be incorporated into this list. She added, however, that her delegation is not prepared to comment on the classification of treaty-rights bodies in relation to this topic and called for further study on this matter.
EDA GUC (Türkiye), addressing “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, shared the view that unilateral acts should not be addressed within the scope of the current work. She recalled that article 38, paragraph 1 (d) of the International Court of Justice Statute does not refer to international organizations. Thus, a cautious approach regarding the resolutions and decisions of international organizations is favoured. Further, she noted that the importance of the need for more diverse sources and references in more languages and from various regions of the world and legal traditions in considering the topic has been highlighted in the report. As to draft conclusion 3, she stated that the criteria for the assessment of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law could be strengthened. The subjectivity of the suggested criteria is one of the reasons of the need for further reflection on the matter.
On “Succession of States in respect of State responsibility”, she reiterated concerns and doubts on different elements of the topic, including the question of whether it was possible to differentiate between its political and legal aspects, which are largely intertwined. The scarcity of available State practice and prevalence of significant differences over the existing ones were among the points raised for the subject’s suitability as draft guidelines. Thus, she welcomed that discussions within the Working Group established during the current session highlighted the shortcomings of the earlier work carried out on the topic. She further noted the difference of views on the way forward as well as on the approaches to be adopted how to best proceed, calling for the concerns and comments raised by Türkiye and other States during the previous stages of the work to be taken into consideration by the Commission during its future deliberations.
KRISTEN KAEVAL (Estonia), associating herself with the European Union and speaking on “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, said that the scope set by the Special Rapporteur is well framed to complement the Commission’s work on the rest of the elements of article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Subsidiary means are clearly auxiliary or supportive in nature, not sources of law themselves. She said she especially looks forward to the assessment of the role of judgements of national courts, noting that additional criteria to determine the subsidiary nature of those decisions are required. She expressed support for draft conclusion 2 (c), which examined other possible means in addition to judicial decisions and teachings, specifically resolutions and decisions of international organizations. Nevertheless, as not all means used can be considered subsidiary, they should be assessed in accordance with draft conclusion 3, she noted.
LIGIA LORENA FLORES SOTO (El Salvador), speaking on “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law” agreed with the proposed methodology, emphasizing that the Commission’s work should take the form of draft conclusions. Noting that judicial decisions are binding on the parties, she said that they can also have an effect of “guiding” or “generating” other sources of international law. To that end, draft conclusions can serve as a guide in identifying which elements can be inferred from such diversity to be used in the determination of the rule of international law. For her country, the sources listed in article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice do not represent an exhaustive list, she said, also calling on the Commission to remain consistent with its work on other topics. Noting with satisfaction that the text of draft conclusion 3 refers to the degree of representativeness, she stressed the importance of linguistic and gender-based diversity in teachings in draft article 5. Further, she expressed support for the Commission to investigate other subsidiary means in more detail.
On “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, she welcomed the establishment of the Working Group to identify various complexities surrounding the provisions adopted thus far and their different options. Expressing her support for the methodology, she underscored the importance of ensuring due representativeness of the criteria and elements from Member States.
LUCIA TERESA SOLANO RAMIREZ (Colombia), on “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, said that — while her delegation agrees that there are other such means beyond those identified in article 38 of the International Court of Justice — looking at all of them would be too great a task. Rather, the Commission should focus on the decisions of international courts and tribunals and on teachings, which are both extremely broad categories that require the Special Rapporteur’s full focus. Additionally, the Special Rapporteur must address the reality of State practice and not only look at jurisprudence. Otherwise, the Commission risks carrying out a legislative exercise, which is not the draft conclusions’ aim. She also invited the Commission to avoid confusing “other potential sources of international law” with “other subsidiary means”, suggesting that references to the “fragmentation” of international law may exceed the scope of the study. The Commission’s goal, she added, should be to consider the function of subsidiary means and the meaning of the word “determination” in the topic’s title.
Turning to “Succession of States in respect of State responsibility”, she took note of the Commission’s decision to re-establish a Working Group at its seventy-fifth session. However, she invited the Commission to proceed with caution, emphasizing that this topic is an important one on which States have already interacted. Further, if the Commission decides to change the manner in which it will proceed on this subject, it would be valuable if it explained its reasoning for doing so. Adding, generally, that the Sixth Committee must discuss how to avoid deadlock in its debates on the Commission’s products, she urged the Committee to adhere to principles-based discussions.
ESMAEIL BAGHAEI HAMANEH (Iran), noting that his delegation had spoken on Cluster 3, said that he felt morally and legally obliged to address the situation in the Gaza Strip. Reporting that 32,000 people have been killed in the bombing, he asked how “the representative of the occupying regime can talk about Israel’s care for civilians”. The “occupying apartheid military” is turning Gaza into “the biggest open mass grave”, he said, adding: “How can we have the face to talk about international humanitarian law when there is no minimum respect for its rules?” He further asked how Member States can take pride in the achievements of the international community in humanizing war through common article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions when war crimes and crimes against humanity are being practiced with absolute impunity.
GABRIELE CACCIA, Permanent Observer for the Holy See, speaking on “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, said that the Commission should make greater efforts to incorporate diverse sources and references from various regions, legal traditions and languages. Drawing attention to an increasingly common confusion regarding binding and non-binding sources of international law, he noted that recommendations and general comments issued by the human rights treaty bodies should not be equated with judicial decisions. Those human rights bodies are not adjudicative, do not observe due process, are not always immune to political considerations and sometimes their members are not experts in international law and treaty law. Welcoming the general criteria outlined in conclusion 3, he underscored that decisions of national courts, regional courts and tribunals with limited membership should be used with caution. National and regional legal principles should not be as assumed to be universal, he added.
LOUREEN O. A. SAYEJ, observer for the State of Palestine, recalling a “short update” — or a “propaganda” — of Israel’s representative on 1 November, said: “Today, I will give you a 48-hours long update for days 26 and 27 of Israel’s war.” She reported that between 31 October and 1 November, Israel killed 280 Palestinians. Since 7 October, 8,805 people, including 3,600 children, were killed and 21,000 Palestinians were injured; of that, 73 per cent of the Palestinian people killed were women and children. Noting that more than 420 children are being killed in Gaza every day, she cited the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) which reported that “Gaza is a graveyard for children”. She also noted that Israel killed 70 UN staff. Further, as of 1 November, Israel has bombed 246 schools and damaged or destroyed more than 170,000 housing units, she said, adding: “But, sure, we should find solace in the lies that Israel is taking precautionary measures to mitigate an unintended civilian harm.” Emphasizing that the level of human assistance allowed in Gaza is not adequate, she repeated the “75-year-long demand” that Israel releases the Palestinian people, whom it has hold hostage for decades. She also urged the international community to ensure “our release from Israel’s racist regime of colonization”.
Right of Reply
The representative of Israel, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that “someone ought to explain to the Palestinian delegate” the difference between a substantive statement and a right of reply. Noting that she could tell the story of every single person murdered on 7 October, she added that she would not, so as not to “exhaust and shock this forum”. She then said that the data published by news outlets and the UN comes from the Gaza Ministry of Health — “which is Hamas” and has been since Hamas took over Gaza in 2007. “The fact that the UN repeats Hamas’ numbers does not make them true,” she stressed, stating that “the Palestinian delegate should know better than to repeat Hamas’ lies”. If that delegation and their supporters want to help civilians in Gaza, they should condemn Hamas. Further, she said that propaganda should “stay outside the walls of this room”, and certainly not be repeated by “any serious, professional delegation here”.
The representative of the State of Palestine said she was glad to have an Israeli delegate on record saying that United Nations reports are propaganda or false. She further asked if statements by Israeli officials are also propaganda.
The representative of Israel said that it is good to have on record that the Palestinian delegate compared Israeli officials with Hamas. “This should be a lesson to everyone in this room”, she said.
The representative of Palestine noted that the Sixth Committee is still waiting for an answer to the question if the statements made by Israeli officials calling for war crimes are also false and propaganda.
The representative of Iran said that one of the items in the Sixth Committee’s agenda is “Respect for and implementation of international humanitarian law”. To that end, he said: “Here we are talking about the people who are under occupation. We are not talking about any particular grouping,” adding that “what we are hearing is a very contaminated, false narrative about the situation in Gaza”. Stressing that it is a duty of every Member State to defend the cause of the Palestinian people for self-determination, he recalled that conforming to humanitarian law, the occupying Power has a clear obligation to protect the people under occupation, not to butcher them.
Closing Remarks
CHARLES C. JALLOH (Sierra Leone), Special Rapporteur on the topic “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, pointed out that approximately 53 delegations from all regions of the world provided their views on this item. This high level of State participation indicates great interest in this topic and underlines its significance for codification relating to sources of international law. Noting that, as Special Rapporteur, he values all States’ comments — without exception — he said that, whether delegations endorsed or expressed doubts over the Commission’s work so far, all will enrich his upcoming work. He added that, while he may not always agree with each delegation on points of substance, he will always duly and carefully consider their statements. Constructive criticism has offered past rapporteurs the opportunity to strengthen their work, and the same applies here.
He also emphasized that States are intended to be the primary beneficiaries of the International Law Commission’s work, reiterating the Commission’s request for any information on relevant State practice. On that, he underlined his wish for submissions from States from all geographic regions; that will help ensure that the world’s principal legal systems are better reflected in future work. Recalling delegations’ substantive points, he said that, going forward, he will continue to reflect on such comments and likely proceed to examine treaty bodies and certain resolutions of international organizations. Further, he said he will carefully examine the criteria listed in draft conclusion 3. Thanking delegations again for their comments, he assured them that they have been heard and will be taken into account in his future work.
PATRÍCIA GALVÃO TELES (Portugal), co-Chair of the International Law Commission, called attention to the high participation in the debate, with some 75 delegations on Cluster 1, and 50 on both Cluster 2 and 3. She noted the comments and observations made in topics that are coming close to a finish, including “General principles of law”, “Sea-level rise” and “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction” (though not formally on the agenda this year). She also noted the new topics, such as “Settlement of Disputes”, “Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea” and “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, as well as the broad support for the new topic, “Non-legally binding agreements”. The comments in the Sixth Committee are a crucial part of the work of the Commission, as are the replies to the requests made in Chapter III of the Report and the written submissions made by States at the different stages of consideration of each topic. However, there are still limitations in the number of participating Member States, she observed.
She further said that there is more room to improve dialogue between the Commission and the Committee to better prepare for the annual debate. For this purpose, the virtual briefing held in May as a preview of the work for the session and the second briefing in September with the main outcomes seemed to have been very beneficial, she reported, adding: “And we hope this practice could be continued.” Another crucial point for such interaction is the identification of new topics for the Commission. To that, she voiced hope that the discussions in this respect can be held next year in the context of the seventy-fifth anniversary. The 2026 session to be held in New York can also further the input of Member States on new topics, including those reflecting pressing challenges to the international community, to continue making the International Law Commission relevant.
NILÜFER ORAL (Türkiye), Co-Chair of the International Law Commission, said: “The strong words of support you have shown us are much appreciated,” underscoring that the annual meetings of the Sixth Committee are very important for the Commission. The current one was especially important, as the Commission has just commenced a new quinquennium with many new members and four new topics, including non-legally binding agreements. The past two weeks have provided the Commission with a rich source of comments and perspectives from States, she noted, welcoming the high level of participation and the clear and substantive remarks. These will guide the Commission’s work, she said, adding that it is important for States from all regions to make their views known.
To that end, the Commission made enhanced outreach and dialogue with the Sixth Committee, she continued. Although only the Chair of the Commission is obliged to participate in the meetings of the Sixth Committee, many other members did so on a voluntary basis. She also noted that the meetings took place in the challenging context of conflict in the world. To that she emphasized that it is crucial that the Sixth Committee, as the legal body of the General Assembly, and the Commission, as the expert body, share a common language of international law and a common goal to ensure that international law is always at the core of their work. In this way, the objectives and principles of the Charter of the United Nations will be fulfilled, she emphasized.
JHON GUERRA SANSONETTI (Venezuela), Vice-Chair of the Sixth Committee, said that the delegations’ comments and observations will be of great value and guidance for the Commission. Expressing gratitude to the Special Rapporteur and the Commission members for their valuable comments, he echoed the words of praise expressed by the delegations for its successful outcome this year. He also emphasized that the Commission’s important contribution to the progressive development of international law and codification “speaks for itself”, wishing it every success in its future endeavours.
Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations Statements
ESTELA MERCEDES NZE MANSOGO (Equatorial Guinea), associating herself with the African Group, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, stressed the importance of strengthening the Organization’s role to provide more effective solutions to persistent and variable contemporary challenges. This involves reforming the UN and, while preserving the legal framework of the Charter as its founding instrument, seeking to achieve an appropriate balance of power between its principal organs. Calling for Security Council reform in the form of increased African representation, she also said that use of the veto must be limited — particularly in the context of humanitarian crises. Further, she stated that unilateral, indiscriminate and disproportionate sanctions only generate more suffering for the population of the sanctioned country. However, by ensuring such measures are applied in a transparent and balanced manner, sanctions could be an important tool with which to maintain international peace and security.
GENG SHUANG (China), aligning himself with the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, noted that amidst turmoil, the incessant flareups of regional hotspots and proliferation of global challenges, this historical juncture requires the international community to rally under the UN banner. The Charter is the supreme instrument of contemporary international law, “the compass for the conduct of international relations,” he stressed. Citing the discussions of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization on sanctions, he affirmed that they are a means, not an end, requiring due consideration to minimizing any impact on the general public and third States. He noted that certain States routinely resort to unilateral sanctions, creating humanitarian crises, eroding the rule of law and undermining the harmony and stability of international relations. “Such acts should be rejected by the entire international community,” he stressed. He cited his delegation’s position on the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis, further condemning any acts that harm civilians in the current Palestinian-Israeli crisis.
KAJAL BHAT (India), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that the Organization’s founding document stipulates that States have the responsibility to settle their disputes by peaceful means. More frequent recourse to the International Court of Justice needs to be taken to promote judicial settlements of international disputes. The Security Council should fully consult all the key regional countries before considering sanction measures, as their impact is often felt by the entire region. She encouraged the Department of Economic and Social Affairs to continue collaborative work with other parts of the Secretariat to improve the sanctions monitoring framework and sanction assessment methodology. Attempts to bring up topics in the Security Council that are better dealt with in specialized agencies and organs created for the purpose should be discouraged. As the Council is facing a crisis of identity, legitimacy and relevance, it should be reformed to reflect contemporary realities, she said.
KIM IN CHOL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) pointed to the interference in sovereign affairs of States, threats of the use of force and selective and double-dealing acts of infringement upon sovereignty by misrepresenting the self-defensive measures for safeguarding sovereignty as a threat for international peace and security. Those contradictions and confrontations exacerbated relations between countries, he said, observing that a “vicious cycle of show-down and conflict” continues unabated worldwide. He, thus, called on the Special Charter Committee to take concrete measures to reject arbitrariness and unilateralism in international relations. Illegal acts of abusing the UN name for realizing “ambitious world supremacy” should be rectified, he stressed, noting that country-specific resolutions and commissions of inquiry are framed up in the name of the Organization, aimed at subversion, regime change and political and economic isolation. Noting the so-called UN Command still exists on the Korean Peninsula, he said that it is becoming a “flash point of a possible greater thermonuclear war”.
AZELA GUERRERO ARUMPAC-MARTE (Philippines), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, pointed out that the Special Charter Committee has many accomplishments, including the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. This demonstrates what the Special Charter Committee can achieve as a forum for meaningful engagement between Member States in questions relating to the Charter and international law. To commemorate its anniversary, the Philippines held — on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement — an interactive dialogue on the Declaration on the side-lines of this year’s session. Among other points, she also noted the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of Charter provisions related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions. In that context, she reiterated that sanctions should only be imposed as a measure of last resort, when there exists a threat to international peace and security, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression. Further, they must always be imposed in accordance with the Charter.
Ms. ALMUAITHIR (Saudi Arabia), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed support for all efforts to reform the United Nations, which confronts many challenges. The principles enshrined in the Charter are as important now as they were in 1945, she said, emphasizing the importance of the peaceful settlement of dispute, strengthening relationships between States on the principle of sovereign equality of States and peoples. Every people have the right to self-determination, she stressed. She voiced support for mediation efforts deployed by the UN in Yemen, noting her Government is making efforts in the Ukraine conflict, including with prisoner exchange. Security Council procedures must be equitable and transparent, and all efforts undertaken by various UN organs must be redoubled to ensure that sanctions do not have negative repercussions for the people affected, she added.
AMANUEL GIORGIO (Eritrea), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, noted that the Special Charter Committee could function as an important platform in the collective efforts to build effective multilateral institutions. To ensure peace and security, socioeconomic progress and justice, it is imperative to always fully respect sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference into domestic affairs. The peaceful settlement of disputes remains relevant as ever. Also important in strengthening the role of the United Nations is to give serious consideration to the different proposals tabled by various delegations. While there is a legal basis for sanctions adopted by the Security Council, the adoption of unilateral coercive measures is illegal and violates the Charter. Such illicit acts are increasingly employed as a tool of aggressive foreign policy by some States, notwithstanding their negative impact on key human rights, he underscored.
KIM HYUNSOO (Republic of Korea) said he was disappointed that the Special Charter Committee concluded its work without a substantive report for the second consecutive year, noting that this could lead to the erosion in confidence of its work. Spotlighting the work of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council in the area of assistance to certain States affected by sanctions, he said that current Security Council sanctions have significantly reduced the possibility of an unintended, adverse effect on certain countries. Turning the remarks made by the delegate of the Democratic Republic of Korea that were “based on ungrounded and distorted allegations”, he emphasized that the Sixth Committee is not an appropriate forum for that end. He said that there is no doubt that the UN Command continues to contribute to peace on the Korean Peninsula, clarifying that the exercises that have been conducted on a regular basis are defensive in nature.
AMR MOHAMED MOSAAD NOUH (Egypt), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that his country has supported the Special Charter Committee’s efforts since its establishment by the 1975 General Assembly resolution. He encouraged that Committee to assume an effective, active role, especially with regard to discussing different proposals relating to the peaceful settlement of disputes. This is especially important during this critical moment for the Middle East, amidst increasing calls for the United Nations to play a greater role in ensuring stability in the region and in maintaining international peace and security. He also cited, in this context, increasing calls for civilians to be protected from being deliberately targeted and from genocide, spotlighting the “crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip before the eyes of the entire world”.
ALINA J. LLANO (Nicaragua), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, noted that the Special Charter Committee helps recast and democratize the UN and its organs, to act for the benefit of peoples and “not hegemonic powers and their egotistical interests”. She stated that only with true multilateralism, in respect of international law and the Charter, will it be possible to counteract the impacts of other pandemics imposed by some powers to the detriment of international security and sovereignty of States. Reiterating that unilateral coercive measures are a contradiction to the Charter, she further called on the United States implement the International Court of Justice ruling in favour of Nicaragua of 27 June 1986 and comply with the reparations mandated by said ruling. “The hegemonic powers must understand that this world is changing,” and the only option is to respect the Charter, she stressed.
MAHDAD FALLAH ASSADI (Iran), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, said the imposition or lifting of Security Council sanctions is completely dependent on the political will of a few Member States, stressing that there should be pre-established standards or criteria for determining the relevant situations or cases while imposing sanctions. Regarding the peaceful settlement of disputes, he said Iran has sought different means of dispute settlement with several States. Given the detrimental impacts of unilateral coercive measures and with a view to developing a legal framework, his delegation has put forward a proposal entitled “Obligations of Member States in relation to unilateral coercive measures: guidelines on ways and means to prevent, remove, minimize and redress the adverse impacts of unilateral coercive measures”, contained in Annex II, (document A/75/33) which was updated last year. “It is high time that the Special Committee […] considers this proposal seriously and substantively,” he stressed.
GLORIA DAKWAK (Nigeria), associating herself with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, requested the Special Charter Committee to continue its consideration of all proposals concerning the maintenance of international peace and security to strengthen the role of the United Nations. She called on the Committee to consider the implementation of the UN Charter’s provisions on assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions as well as the proposals submitted on the peaceful settlement of disputes between States. The imposition of unilateral sanctions goes against the sovereign equality and international law. Sanctions should always be in line with the UN Charter with the purpose to extract compliance with international obligation from a State rather than punish its population. She also welcomed the revised working paper by Ghana on strengthening the relationship and cooperation between the United Nations and regional arrangements or agencies in the peaceful settlement of disputes.
CARMEN ROSA RIOS (Bolivia), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said that the Charter has marked a turning point in the history of international law. Noting that the framework of international treaties — bilateral or multilateral — forms a standard and basis for peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between States, she pointed out that — when necessary — treaties may require certain changes, modifications or amendments to make them appropriate to new realities. In that regard, she underscored the importance of the Special Charter Committee, also highlighting that her country promotes peace and peaceful conflict resolution. She further reaffirmed that coercive measures imposed on many States negatively affect the economy and the lives of the people and run utterly counter to the principles of the Charter.
MOHAMED FAIZ BOUCHEDOUB (Algeria), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, expressed regret that the Special Charter Committee was only able to adopt one chapter of its 2023 report, which was comprised of procedural paragraphs. Calling on that Committee to continue its consideration of the imposition and implementation of sanctions by the United Nations, he also encouraged the body to examine certain proposals submitted by various States, including those advanced by Libya, Belarus, Cuba and Ghana. Further, he welcomed the Special Charter Committee’s substantive discussion on the peaceful settlement of disputes, calling on it to continue its consideration of a proposal by the Russian Federation that calls on the Secretariat to establish a website relating to that matter and to update the Handbook on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States.
LOUREEN O. A. SAYEJ, observer for the State of Palestine, associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the efficacy of the Charter is embodied in the universal, judicial and peaceful power of the International Court of Justice, as “it remains the world’s court, for all and excluding none”. Despite tremendous challenges, the decisions of the Court have proven their centrality to the peaceful settlement of disputes, she said, adding: "Both prevention and conflict resolutions command giving the Court a greater possible role in enforcing and promoting the Charter.” Further, the Court, in delivering its opinions with authority and credibility, relies on the rules of international law and peremptory norms which all States are obligated to observe and therefore contribute to stability and consistency in international relations. She welcomed the General Assembly’s request for the Court to render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Right of Reply
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said the Special Committee is the appropriate forum to deal with the illegal entity of the UN Command, adding that “the Command in South Korea is illegal from its inception” and that its name was misused by the United States. He pointed out that Security Council resolution 84 (1950) was forcibly adopted without the presence of the-then Soviet Union, a permanent member of the Council, in flagrant violation of Article 32 and, in particular, paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Charter. In addition, the resolution did not stipulate to form the UN’s forces and Command but recommended to establish the Command under the United States’ control, he said, stressing that the UN Command is not the UN. The United States has turned the Korean Peninsula into a nuclear arsenal decades before his country had access to nuclear weapons. Pointing to growing military threats from the United States and its allies, he warned that if the United States and the Republic of Korea continue to perpetrate reckless military provocations against his country, the end result would be disastrous.
The representative of the Republic of Korea noted that the delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is making baseless, politically distorted claims. The allegations are nothing but excuses for its flagrant violation of multiple Security Council resolutions. He expressed hope that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will cease its reckless behaviour and start acting responsibly.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that because of the existence of the UN Command, the security mechanism on the Korean Peninsula has become war oriented. It is an instrument of implementing the hostile policy of the United States towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and is its strategy of hegemony in the region. In this context, he called for dissolving the UN Command at an early date. Moreso, his country has never recognized the Security Council resolutions that seriously infringe upon its sovereignty and will never be bound by them, he said.
Expulsion of Aliens Statements
SCOTT TAN (Singapore) emphasized that progressive development in respect of the laws and practices applicable to the expulsion of aliens must be approached with caution. Voicing concern over the lack of distinction in the draft articles and its commentaries between codification and progressive development, he said his delegation has consistently opposed the expanded principle of non-refoulement articulated in paragraph 2 of draft article 23, which is not reflective of customary international law. There is no customary international law obligation to the effect that a State that has abolished the death penalty is bound not to expel a person to another State where the death penalty may be imposed, he added. He voiced his rejection of the position articulated in the draft articles on this matter, he said, noting that these concerns on the draft articles have also been expressed by other delegations. Moreover, Singapore does not support their status as draft articles and the General Assembly should simply take note of the draft articles as well as the concerns and reservations expressed by the delegations on them, he added.
VICTOR SILVEIRA BRAOIOS (Brazil), noting that the right to expel is inherent to States, stressed that countries should not expel individuals from their territories in violation to the principle of non-refoulement, nor do they have the right to promote collective expulsions. Pointing to the increasing tendency to criminalize migrants and abuse in expulsion proceedings, he emphasized that the separation of children from their families, long detention periods, precarious detention conditions and violence and torture against migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers are unacceptable. He reported that Brazil’s Congress passed a new law on migration aimed at harnessing the potential migrants have to enrich the country’s culture, noting that it has strengthened a possibility for humanitarian visas. Also noting that in his country’s legislation the expulsion of aliens has two forms — deportation and expulsion stricto sensu — he said that the law forbids collective deportations and expulsions. To that end, the draft articles reflect Brazil’s national practice concerning the expulsion of foreigners and bring legal guarantees already upheld in its legislation.
ELIZABETH MARYANNE GROSSO (United States) said that her delegation “continues to question the wisdom and utility” of seeking to augment well-settled rules of law that exist in broadly ratified human rights and refugee conventions. These instruments already provide the legal basis for achieving the objectives of the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens. Further, some of the draft articles risk generating confusion with respect to existing rules of law by combining — in the same provision — elements from existing rules with elements that reflect proposals for the progressive development of international law. “Accordingly, we do not believe that it is appropriate to pursue elaboration of a convention based on the draft articles,” she said.
PAVEL EVSEENKO (Belarus) said the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens recommended for consideration in 2014 can provide a solid basis for finding an important balance between respect for the rights and legitimate interests of persons under threat of expulsion and the right of expelling States to implement measures to protect sovereignty and national security. “We believe that expulsion is a serious and responsible measure” to restrict the freedom of movement of aliens and members of the person’s family, he said, while upholding the procedural guarantees of the person subject to expulsion and that person’s family members. He further said he did not believe it right to expel aliens if the person has been on the territory of the expelling State for a period of time that would lend itself to the alien having temporary or even permanent residency. When considering expulsion, specific status should be given to refugees, forced migrants, victims of human trafficking, pregnant women and children, he added.
WIETEKE ELISABETH CHRISTINA THEEUWEN (Netherlands), noting that the draft articles include many existing obligations — particularly those related to human rights and essential to the treatment of everyone who is expelled — expressed regret that the draft articles as adopted by the International Law Commission go beyond the currently applicable rules of international law on expulsion of aliens and are not in accordance with State practice. Over the past years, her delegation has consistently objected to such progressive development of international law in this field, she said, noting that at this time, it cannot support a convention or any other form of codification on the basis of these draft articles.
MAHDAD FALLAH ASSADI (Iran) underscored the significance of the topic that is simultaneously concerned with the sovereign prerogative of States and the human rights obligations of States towards non-nationals in their territories. Nevertheless, it is premature to convene a diplomatic conference on the elaboration of a convention. The Commission went beyond customary and treaty law in the draft articles, engaging in the progressive development of international law, while State practice remains limited. States do not always have an obligation to specify the grounds for expulsion. More so, there is doubt around the existence of customary rules on appeal against expulsion. The right of return to the expelling State cannot be recognized in the case of aliens who were unlawfully on its territory prior to the expulsion. Equal treatment towards lawful and unlawful aliens present in a State’s territory could create an incentive for illegal immigration, he stressed.
PABLO AGUSTÍN ESCOBAR ULLAURI (Ecuador), while recognizing the right of States to expel aliens from their territories, said that this prerogative cannot be disassociated from international commitments on human rights. To this end, he expressed support to the Commission for incorporating international standards to that end. Stressing that expulsion can only happen to the extent of a duly motivated decision of a competent authority, he underscored the importance of due process which includes notification of a decision, legally effective track to access appeals, availability if consular assistance and equal treatment before the law. He also underlined the prohibition of the expulsion of refugees, except for reasons to national security or public order, noting that an expulsion decision must be a result of an individual evaluation of their needs and protection and must never be a collective decision. To that end, the draft articles are an appropriate basis for discussions among Member States regarding the form they take, he asserted.
NATALIA JIMÉNEZ ALEGRÍA (Mexico) pointed out that each draft article is duly documented, with the accompanying commentaries providing greater context and background for each topic. However, the draft articles’ content and quality contrasts with the fact that this agenda item remains undefined. Since 2014 — on three occasions, given its triennial programming — the Sixth Committee has limited itself to merely stating that its consideration of this topic will continue in the next session. Against that backdrop, she underscored that the Committee must address all products adopted by the International Law Commission with equal seriousness. Its draft articles on the expulsion of aliens are no exception. Further, she reiterated that expulsion processes must categorically uphold existing international law, human-rights instruments and due process. Neither the nationality of those facing expulsion nor their legal or migratory situation can justify denying or violating their human rights, she added.
LUCIA TERESA SOLANO RAMIREZ (Colombia) said the draft articles are a good basis for an in-depth discussion on the topic, noting that the Secretary-General has observed a significant increase in the number of internally displaced persons, refugees and stateless persons — with news every day reporting that such persons have been expelled or returned to countries which they left without respect for their human rights or dignity. She recalled that States are well aware of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, which holds that there must be a guarantee of human rights and due process for all persons regardless of their migratory status. She called for the draft articles to be discussed in light of elements already consolidated under international human rights law. Colombia is prepared to discuss multiple mechanisms such as those proposed by the delegation of Brazil, she said.
AZELA GUERRERO ARUMPAC-MARTE (Philippines) said that the “Philippine Immigration Act of 1940” has been the national legal framework on which the issuance of Philippine visas, exclusion and deportation proceedings, and other reportorial requirements that an alien must comply with in order to legally stay in the Philippines, is based on. Since then, the Bureau of Immigration has passed various issuances to complement the Philippine Immigration Act. Due process guarantees are enshrined in Philippine law and substantive rights to aliens facing expulsion and the attendant procedures are also available. The Philippines is among the few countries in the region to have acceded to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its 1967 Protocol. Her delegation sees value in the draft articles as guidelines to States and as providing some insights into possible reforms in national legal frameworks. While there is still no consensus on the next steps, her delegation would prefer that the topic remain on the Committee’s agenda, she said.
KEKE MANTSHO ANNASTACIA MOTSEPE (South Africa) noted that expulsion of aliens is an extreme measure with a profound impact on an individual’s life and that of their family members. Such actions must therefore be undertaken within the confines of a sound legal framework, encompassing both international law and the domestic legislation of the concerned State. The draft articles, for the most part, align with the principles of South African law as it has evolved since the introduction of the South African Constitution and Bill of Rights in 1996, as well as its domestic statutes. The principles of upholding human dignity and the human rights of aliens, as articulated in draft article 13, along with the prohibition of discrimination, as outlined in draft article 14, constitute fundamental tenets of South Africa's Bill of Rights. Against this backdrop, she endorsed the inclusive approach of the draft articles.
VLADIMIR MORA (Cuba) said that the draft articles may be a starting point for drawing up an international convention on this matter, noting that the codification of the rights of persons expelled or in the process of being expelled is useful. Emphasizing that the protection of human rights of such persons cannot constitute a limit to the State’s right of expulsion, he said it is necessary to consider respect for domestic law and the maintenance of public security of each nation. He also stressed the importance of a prior notification to the State of destination on the application of expulsion to protect the right to communication that such persons have with their consular representation. Recalling that Cuba’s criminal law envisages the expulsion of aliens as one of the accessory penalties applicable to natural persons by the sanctioning court, he said that such penalty can be imposed when the competent court considers that the accused person’s stay in the country is prejudicial.
ZACHARIE SERGE RAOUL NYANID (Cameroon), underlining the need to balance the rights of an alien subject to expulsion and those of the expelling State, welcomed the Commission’s efforts to define essential concepts such as “alien” and “expulsion”. He pointed out, however, that the prohibition against expelling a refugee lawfully on a State’s territory except on grounds of national security or public order — contained in draft article 6 — “opens the door to legal insecurity”. He also stressed that expulsion must be an administrative act that can be challenged before the courts of the expelling State. Among other points, he noted that draft article 22 generates obligations for the State of an alien’s nationality or any other State obligated to host such alien under international law. It is not easy in practice, however, to determine the nationality of an individual with no official documents, who refuses to give their nationality or who provides a fantastical one, he said.
FLORES SOTO (El Salvador) voiced regret that the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens have been finalized in the International Law Commission when various substantive questions of special interest to States are still pending. She emphasized the global context in which movements and human displacements increase every day due to multiple factors and causes, including conflict situations, economic and social aggravation, poverty and even climate change and sea level rise. It is crucial to have a framework of norms that regulate a strict balance between the sovereign prerogative of a State and the guarantee of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of people subject to an expulsion process. Noting, among other issues, that the draft articles depart from clarifying obligations between the State ordering the expulsion and the State of destination, she called on the Committee to establish the necessary format to debate the issue and ensure that the project is based on guaranteeing human dignity.
NUR AZURA BINTI ABD KARIM (Malaysia) said that the proposed provisions, for example in draft articles 3, 4 and 6, would limit the discretionary powers that have been conferred to a State in managing matters involving foreigners in their respective territories. Further consideration should also be made to non-State parties of the cited international treaties, in particular the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. These provisions under the draft articles compel the non-State parties to implement the obligations underlined in the treaties, she added. Moreover, Malaysia exercises its own laws, rules, policies and measures in handling migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and, like all other Member States, is entitled to its sovereign responsibility as recognized by international law. Voicing concern that the draft articles could not ensure full respect for State sovereignty, territorial integrity, as well as protection of its national security, the final form of the draft articles should be considered as “guiding principles” between Member States, she said.
ANNA V. ANTONOVA (Russian Federation), underscoring the importance of the topic, said it pertains both to the prerogative of States to expel and to the need to respect human rights. This is particularly relevant because of the ever-increasing hotbeds of migration — primarily in least developed countries — she noted, pointing out that the Commission’s product covers a range of topics to that end. Noting the importance of a State’s control and its right to expel aliens due to a crime committed on that territory, she said that such circumstances do not obviate the need to uphold due process and respect for the rights of persons subject to expulsion. The key issue is how to strike a balance, she stressed, underlining that the draft articles provide innovative provisions and contain elements of codification. Also noting the need for a detailed analysis of this topic, she proposed to continue discussions at a resumed session of the Sixth Committee in 2025-2026.
JOSE JUAN HERNANDEZ CHAVEZ (Chile) observed that this topic is closely linked to fundamental norms of international humanitarian law and the corresponding obligations on States to respect and protect the rights of those subject to their jurisdiction — with no discrimination. This means that States have the right to expel aliens and that, for this expulsion to happen, States must comply with several regulations and procedures. Recalling that his country approved a law in 2021 relating to foreign migration, he said such legislation aims to facilitate orderly, safe and regular migration. It provides for the establishment of citizenship and residence “to those who wish to create links with our country”, he reported, adding that Chile protects the human rights of aliens present on its territory “independent of their migratory status”. He went on to say that his delegation is open to a recommendation from the Sixth Committee to the General Assembly to include this topic on the Committee’s provisional programme of work for its eighty-first session.
MELINA LITO (United Kingdom) noted that her delegation’s position has always been that this is a challenging and problematic subject which seeks to intrude directly on national border management plans. The United Kingdom firmly holds that the topic of expulsion of aliens is unsuitable for a convention or other legally-binding instrument at the present time, does not accept that the draft articles reflect customary international law, and does not agree with the content of those articles, she emphasized. The role of States to control their own borders and manage migration — particularly that of an irregular character — remains especially important and should be afforded considerable discretion. Further, States must continue to enjoy the right to manage borders and control immigration in accordance with national sovereignty. In 2017, her delegation appended detailed comments on the draft articles to the written version of its statement, and those comments remain its formal position, she said.
GABRIELE CACCIA, Permanent Observer of the Holy See, welcoming several articles of the draft articles, voiced support for the extension of the principle of non-refoulment, as provided for in draft articles 23 and 24, as well as the progressive development in the limitation of the death penalty. In that regard, he welcomed paragraph 2 of draft article 23, which extends to those States which currently do not apply the death penalty — although it may still exist in their legislation — the prohibition on expulsion of aliens to States where there is a real risk that they will be subjected to the death penalty. He also expressed full support for the adoption of an internationally binding instrument addressing the expulsion of aliens as well as the establishment of an ad hoc committee or an open-ended working group open to all States, to negotiate such an instrument. The complex and politically sensitive nature of this matter, which affects countless people, requires the formulation of common norms and clear standards, he stressed.
Right of Reply
The representative of Singapore, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, recalled that the General Assembly recognized the right of all countries to develop their legal systems and determine legal penalties for crimes. In this regard, the reference to draft article 23 represents a progressive development of international law that his delegation does not support, he asserted.