Alternative Working Methods Needed to Rejuvenate Stagnated Discussions, Speakers Stress, as Sixth Committee Holds Debate on Revitalizing General Assembly Work
Delegates Take Action on Requests for Observer Status, Hear Working Group Reports
Approving one request for observer status and deferring nine others today, the Sixth Committee (Legal) also heard the oral reports of two Working Groups and took up its agenda item on revitalizing the General Assembly’s work, as several delegates suggested alternative working methods to rejuvenate stagnated discussions.
The Sixth Committee approved, without a vote, the draft resolution titled “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). By its terms, that organization would participate in the sessions and work of the General Assembly in the capacity of observer. (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3693.)
The Committee also recommended that the General Assembly defer to its seventy-ninth session decisions on the observer requests for the Cooperation Council of Turkic-speaking States, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Community of Democracies, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Secretariat, the Global Environment Facility, the International Organization of Employers, the International Trade Union Confederation, the Boao Forum for Asia and the International Parliamentarians’ Congress.
During the subsequent debate on “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly”, the representative of Egypt expressed appreciation for that body’s role during the current crisis in the Middle East. At a time when the Security Council was paralysed by internal polarization, the Assembly adopted a resolution to protect civilians. Noting that this signals the body’s future leading role, he stressed the importance of adding dynamism, transparency and efficacy to this “parliament of the international community”.
On the Sixth Committee specifically, Portugal’s representative, speaking for a group of like-minded countries, said that its working methods have been impacting its ability to have more substantive discussions. Noting that consensus was never intended to undermine the Committee’s substantive engagement, he said that its misuse as a veto that stalls discussions and blocks progress may undermine the Committee’s efficacy and integrity. To that end, resolutions it prepares should reflect delegations’ substantive engagement — even when positions diverge, he said.
While expressing support for the Committee’s tradition of consensus, the representative of Australia, also speaking for Canada and New Zealand, echoed the concerns of others regarding its misuse to obstruct decisions that otherwise enjoy clear, overwhelming support. “There is no veto power in the General Assembly or its Main Committees,” she pointed out. Also spotlighting the Committee’s ever-growing agenda, she suggested that the Committee should be ready to biennialize, triennialize and even sunset stagnant resolutions.
However, Costa Rica’s representative observed: “The issue is not whether or not we are allowing topics to die. The key question here is what are the implications of that for international law.” Urging the Committee’s Bureau to convene an extraordinary meeting to have an open, informal space in which to analyse working methods, she noted that improving them could help the Committee to set aside its nickname — “the cemetery of topics”.
At the outset of the meeting, the Committee heard oral reports by the Chairs of the Working Groups on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism and on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters.
Working Groups Reports
ROHAN PERERA (Sri Lanka), Chair of the Working Group on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, presenting its oral report, said that the Working Group held two meetings, during which it adopted its programme of work and held discussions in the format of informal consultations. Such discussions concerned outstanding issues relating to the draft comprehensive convention and the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations. He reported that, during consultations on the draft comprehensive convention — held on 17 October — a point was made on the need to have some understanding of the legal principles underpinning the definition of “terrorism” before the Working Group could consider any textual proposals. Attention was also drawn to the importance of preserving the existing global counter-terrorism framework.
On 3 November, the Working Group considered the question of convening a high-level conference, he continued. While some delegations reiterated their support for convening such a conference, others indicated that doing so would be premature without first achieving consensus on outstanding issues. Noting that 2023 will be his last year as Chair of the Working Group, he recalled that he has served in that capacity for more than 20 years and has seen the adoption of three important counter-terrorism conventions. “We have all been moved by a common desire to strengthen the international legal framework to combat international terrorism,” he observed, adding that he still holds hope that, even as he leaves, the international community will overcome existing differences and reach agreement on a draft comprehensive convention.
ANTONIO MANUEL REVILLA LAGDAMEO (Philippines), Chair of the Working Group on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, reporting on the eight meetings that the Working Group held during October and November, noted that at its first meeting, the Working Group received expert presentations by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, New York Liaison Office of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The remaining seven meetings were dedicated to the examination of the draft articles as provided by General Assembly resolution 76/119. The programme of work was divided into five thematic clusters of articles — general provisions, core obligations, provisions on international operations, provisions concerning the affected State and facilitation of external assistance.
The delegations engaged in substantive, in-depth discussions, he continued, noting that this could help set the ground for deliberations during the seventy-ninth session of the General Assembly and the intersessional period. The report will be posted on the Sixth Committee’s website together with an annex containing a summary of the Working Group’s deliberations. An initial draft of the Chair’s summary was circulated, giving all delegations the opportunity to submit comments thereon in writing or orally during the final meeting of the Working Group. Having endeavoured to take all comments into account when finalizing the document to ensure a nuanced and equitable reflection of the discussions, he expressed hope that such a detailed written summary, intended for informational purposes and convenience of delegations only, will be of assistance in the upcoming deliberations.
ANDY ARON (Indonesia), coordinator for the draft resolution on the protection of persons in the event of disasters, gave an overview of the meetings of the Working Group on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, observing that, at present, the Working Group was mid-stream in the process established by that resolution.
Upon consulting the various interested delegations, including, but not limited to, the core group of delegations, he said that no draft resolution is required at the present session. Noting that General Assembly resolution 76/119 already provides sufficient legal basis for the inclusion of the agenda item in the provisional agenda of its seventy-ninth session, he recommended that the Sixth Committee decide not to take action on this agenda item at the present session.
Requests for Observer Status
The Sixth Committee next considered draft resolutions concerning requests for observer status in the General Assembly, recommending that the Assembly defer to its seventy-ninth session decisions on such requests for the Cooperation Council of Turkic-speaking States (document A/66/141); the Eurasian Economic Union (document A/70/141); the Community of Democracies (document A/70/142); the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Secretariat (document A/72/194); the Global Environment Facility (document A/72/195); the International Organization of Employers (document A/74/291); the International Trade Union Confederation (document A/74/292); the Boao Forum for Asia (document A/74/293); and the International Parliamentarians’ Congress (document A/78/141).
The Sixth Committee then took up the draft resolution, “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). (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3693.)
By the text, the Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science and Culture would participate in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly in the capacity of observer.
The Sixth Committee approved the draft resolution without a vote.
Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly
SURIYA CHINDAWONGSE (Thailand), Chair of the Sixth Committee, recalled that the agenda item “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly” was allocated to all the Main Committees for the purpose of considering their working methods and taking action on their respective tentative work programmes for the following session. Highlighting a number of innovations in the Committee’s working methods that have been introduced over the years based on recommendations made during the annual debate under this agenda item, he also pointed to the “lessons learned” paper developed several years ago. It now reflects the “accumulated wisdom of many colleagues over the years”, he added.
Drawing attention to the Committee’s draft provisional programme of work during its seventy-ninth session, he said that, exceptionally, the Bureau is proposing that it commences its work earlier than usual — on the Wednesday of the week after the General Assembly high-level debate. This will allow the Committee to hold International Law Week a week earlier to avoid overlap with the thirty-fourth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, to be held the following week. Emphasizing that the programme will be applied flexibly, considering the rhythm of the Committee’s debate and any needs that may arise, he said that no meetings will be scheduled for the dates and times when the reports of various international courts and tribunals will be presented in the General Assembly.
SERGIO AMARAL ALVES DE CARVALHO (Portugal), speaking for a group of like-minded countries, stressed that the Committee’s working methods have been impacting its ability to have more substantive discussions. In this regard, he expressed support for appointing a focal point to help consolidate institutional memory on any best practices and lessons learned and facilitate further informal exchanges between delegations. Voicing concern over the Committee’s inability to follow up on the Work of the International Law Commission and meaningfully address its recommendations, he underlined the need for addressing how the Committee engages with the Commission on the selection of topics and on the format of the outcomes. More so, as the Commission approaches the seventy-fifth anniversary of its first session, the discussions on how to improve its relationship with the General Assembly would be most relevant to celebrate its extraordinary legacy and contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law.
Also noting that consensus was never intended to undermine the Committee’s substantive engagement, he said that its misuse as a veto that stalls discussions and blocks progress may undermine the Committee’s effectiveness and integrity. To that end, resolutions prepared and adopted should reflect the level of delegations’ substantive engagement, even when positions are divergent, rather than rolling over existing texts. Also stressing the need for rationalization and enhanced rotation among the coordinators of resolutions, he encouraged the Committee to improve its accessibility and efficiency. In addition, he suggested discussing how digital technologies could be leveraged to create forums for dialogue with the Commission and Special Rapporteurs. Spotlighting the possibility of ensuring that informal consultations are held with the text of the resolutions on the screen to help colleagues who have hearing impairments, he also highlighted the need for a reasonable limit in the allotted time for interventions during the debate of the International Law Commission’s report.
ALEXANDRA HUTCHISON (Australia), also speaking for Canada and New Zealand, recommended that, for any agenda items involving informal briefings from the Secretariat or others, such briefings should be scheduled before the plenary debate. This would enable delegations to consider the information and clarifications provided when preparing statements. Further, the Committee should determine time limits for statements during the debate on the report of the International Law Commission and, with an ever-growing agenda, should be ready to biennialize, triennialize and even sunset stagnant resolutions. On that, she said that the Committee should consider adopting a sunset approach for existing requests for observer status, whereby they would be removed from the agenda after three sessions unless their co-sponsors request otherwise. She also urged the Bureau to ensure that the appointment of coordinators is appropriately balanced in terms of geographic representation, gender diversity and the world’s principal legal systems.
She called attention to the opportunity to strengthen the important relationship between the Committee and the Commission, along with the substantive exchange between them. Commission members — especially Special Rapporteurs — should take advantage of virtual working methods to increase informal intersessional dialogue with the Committee, and regular Commission sessions should be held in New York more than once every quinquennium. Additionally, she underscored the need to do more to strengthen women’s participation and leadership in international law, expressing disappointment that the Bureau only has one woman member this session. While expressing support for the Committee’s tradition of consensus — “consistent with the universality for which we strive in international law” — she said that her delegation shares the concerns of others regarding its misuse to obstruct decisions that otherwise have a clear, overwhelming consensus. “There is no veto power in the General Assembly or its Main Committees,” she stressed.
MARITZA CHAN VALVERDE (Costa Rica), underscoring that the mandate of the Sixth Committee is clear, noted that its reality — especially in the last 23 years — is discouraging. “The issue is not whether or not we are allowing topics to die. The key question here is what are the implications of that for international law,” she pointed out. The Committee should take into account the agreements achieved by consensus in the recent resolution on revitalization of the General Assembly’s work. To that end, it should devote more time to holding substantive and interactive dialogues as well as to reviewing the implementation of approved resolutions. More so, she recommended that the agenda item on revitalizing the work of the General Assembly should be included in the first week of the Committee’s work programme during its seventy-ninth session, also urging its Bureau to convene an extraordinary meeting to have an open and informal space to analyse the body’s working methods. Their improvement could help the Committee set aside its nickname — “the cemetery of topics”, she noted.
AMR MOHAMED MOSAAD NOUH (Egypt) expressed appreciation for the General Assembly’s role during the current crisis in the Middle East, particularly the war launched against the Gaza Strip. He pointed out that the Assembly responded to the endeavours of Arab and Islamic countries, including the Non‑Aligned Movement, by resuming its tenth special session and adopting a resolution to protect civilians in the time when the Security Council has failed to undertake its responsibilities due to internal polarization. Noting that it is a signal that this body will play a leading role in maintaining international peace and security in the future, he also pointed out that the Assembly is the main organ that encompasses all Member States. To that end, the revitalization of its work — by adding dynamism, transparency and effectiveness — is of vital importance, he stressed, emphasizing that the General Assembly is a “parliament of the international community”, where all nations work on equal footing.
Point of Order
ANNA V. ANTONOVA (Russian Federation), reverting to the earlier agenda item on the Working Group’s report on “Protection of persons in the event of disasters”, pointed out that her delegation received the Chair’s report after the relevant agenda item was concluded. Stating that she was “absolutely astonished” that a report can be sent out at such time, she said that comments made by her delegation in writing and repeatedly stated during meetings were not incorporated into the text. Namely, her delegation — and others — said there was no agreement regarding whether to conclude a convention on this topic. She added that she did not understand why delegations needed to “waste half a day” discussing this report and submitting comments that were, ultimately, not taken into consideration.