As Sixth Committee Continues Debate, Speakers Still Divided on Whether to Codify Draft Texts Tackling Crimes against Humanity into International Convention

Continuing their consideration of crimes against humanity, Sixth Committee (Legal) delegates today debated whether to commence negotiations towards a legally binding international instrument based on the International Law Commission’s draft articles on the prevention and punishment of such crimes, with many ready to do so even as some expressed reservations and noted a continuing divergence of views.

Detailing the procedural history of the Sixth Committee’s engagement with the draft articles that the Commission adopted in 2019, the representative of Mexico spotlighted the resolution advanced by her country and the Gambia — supported by 86 States so far — to convene a plenipotentiary conference in 2026 to negotiate a convention on crimes against humanity.  Underlining the need to break the vicious cycle of inaction, she said:  “This is proof of the determination of our membership to move on to the negotiating phase.”

The representative of Cabo Verde, speaking for the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, observed that a plenipotentiary conference would enable States to address their concerns and elaborate “a convention that strives for universal adherence and implementation”.  Recalling that during the 2023 and 2024 resumed sessions on the draft articles, Member States moved to another level of engagement, she stated:  “We could display our countries’ overall understanding on how the criminal system should operate.”

For his part, Peru’s representative, speaking for Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama and Uruguay, pointed to the absence of an international convention focused on crimes against humanity.  “To fill that gap in international law is a moral and urgent duty,” he said, stressing that the Sixth Committee can overcome differences, which are “natural” given the rich diversity of legal traditions.  He also noted that the resumed session of the Committee, held in April, led to “considerable mutual learning” and showed that States are prepared to negotiate and draft an international convention.

“Our fight to end crimes against humanity must unite and not divide us,” stressed Malta’s representative, spotlighting an overwhelming support for “this codification desideratum”, legal and historical confirmation of the existence of crimes against humanity.  The representative of Afghanistan concurred, underscoring that the need for a codified international standard to prevent and punish crimes against humanity has never been more urgent.  Further, credible reports indicate widespread violations in his country that “fit the definition of crimes against humanity”, he observed, stressing that an international convention on this topic must include a recognition of “gender apartheid”.

Adding to that, the representative of Burkina Faso underscored the importance of preventing and punishing crimes against humanity due to the recent history of atrocities in Africa.  He, like others, also stated that people in Africa have been victims of the slave trade, colonialism and apartheid, observing that the same people are now victims of terrorist armed groups.  In that regard, his country’s legislation provides the necessary legal and administrative tools to prevent the most serious of crimes.

For his part, Qatar’s representative stated that national jurisdictions are the most competent forums in which to prosecute these crimes.  Any international instrument on this topic would contribute to the progressive development and codification of international law, he said, “on the condition that it would not limit domestic jurisdiction or limit the ability of national judges to exercise discretion”.  Further, it should be complementary to existing norms relating to the prevention of such crimes.

However, Spain’s representative, pointing out that many Member States do not have national legislation codifying crimes against humanity as offences, emphasized that a global convention would fill this vacuum and consolidate the legal structure of international criminal law.  “Coherence and legal safety must prevail in this process,” he said, urging States to use as reference and inspiration international instruments already in force.  He also stressed the need to include the gender-based aspect in the articles.

Many delegates agreed that the International Law Commission’s draft articles constitute a solid basis towards the elaboration of a convention, while some emphasized that certain aspects of the text could be improved. Ireland’s representative said: “This Committee has plainly given the draft articles adequate consideration.  We are now ready to proceed to the elaboration of a convention.” He observed that, by agreeing to proceed on the basis of the draft articles, States would not be endorsing them entirely in their current form.  They would merely agree to use them as a “negotiating text”.

The representative of the Federated States of Micronesia observed that, given the “depth and breadth” of the Commission’s work over the past five years, there is now a “rich corpus of views” on which a formal treaty-making process can be based.  In that regard, “Chile is willing to move forward in negotiations in this vein, on the basis of draft articles,” stated that country’s representative as she noted that they reflect the international community’s consensus regarding these crimes. “Let us not allow the differences of opinion to derail our efforts to reach a convention,” she stressed.

Nonetheless, Eritrea’s representative, expressing concern over the draft articles’ “selective nature”, noted that some delegations often use the expression “never again” when referring to the need for accountability for the gravest violations of international law — including crimes against humanity.  “However, the unfortunate reality is that we have witnessed, time and again, how little weight those words hold to the very delegations that chant them the loudest,” she said.  Stating that “moving forward in the context of treaty negotiations based on the present draft articles would be very difficult and a significant concession for many States”, she suggested first addressing the imbalances present in the draft articles.

Similarly, the representative of Namibia spotlighted “selectivity” in how some crimes against humanity in the present draft articles have gained popularity while others are neglected, including the already codified crime of apartheid.  Despite a legal instrument in place and two indictments in recent years, the crime of apartheid has not resulted in a single conviction, she observed, adding: “The submissions we are making are part of the evolving scope and understanding of crimes against humanity that the Commission should also consider.”

Building on that, Iran’s representative said:  “Like many other Member States, we are not yet convinced of the need for a convention,” noting that there is “little doubt” that highly divergent views continue to exist regarding the content and final form of the draft articles.  Although the Sixth Committee “remains the sole appropriate forum for the continuation of deliberations under this agenda item”, the idea of drafting a convention “is premature and still needs serious assessment”.  The delegate of Algeria concurred, pointing out that the draft articles in their current form do not represent a good basis for negotiation and require many amendments in several parts of the text.

Nevertheless, the representative of Sierra Leone, speaking for a cross-regional group of 74 States, the European Union and the State of Palestine, expressed support for a convention.  “Reflecting on the history of humanity across all regions of the world, our collective memory, if not faded, recalls the plight and mistreatment of some people belonging to religious and racialized groups fleeing the atrocities fitting the definition of genocide or crimes against humanity,” he said.  The international community must therefore take decisive action to end impunity for crimes against humanity, just as it has done for genocide.

“We are here because we have an obligation to protect and respect human dignity,” the Gambia’s representative emphasized.  Debates in the Sixth Committee have thus far produced no clear path forward, and this lack of progress calls for constructive, forward-looking engagement.  “Looking forward, we must dare to be different,” he stressed, and — while the draft articles are not perfect — they can provide a basis for constructive negotiation.  He concluded: “It is only through negotiations that we can address the shortcomings and imperfections of the draft articles, paragraph-by-paragraph, and — where possible and necessary — make proposals that can stand and make a difference.”