Sixth Committee Chair Highlights International Law Commission’s ‘Noble Cause’ Developing International Law, as Delegates Begin Debate on Annual Report
Marking the seventy-fifth session of the International Law Commission, the Chair of the Sixth Committee (Legal) highlighted the Commission’s contribution to the development and codification of international law, as delegations took up its annual report today and began their debate on the first of three clusters of topics, including “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, “Sea-level rise in relation to international law” and “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission”.
Opening the meeting, Rui Vinhas (Portugal), Chair of the Sixth Committee, calling attention to the International Law Commission’s celebrating its seventy‑fifth session, declared: “We pay homage to its members, past and present, who have contributed to the noble cause of the progressive development of international law and its codification.” Also spotlighting the pivotal role of the General Assembly and the Commission in this process, he added: “This is, thus, the most important forum and time for both bodies to interact to fulfil our common responsibility.” Comments from Governments and State practices presented during the discussion represent an inevitable part of the Commission’s analysis and shape the outcomes of its work.
Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez (Ecuador), Chair of the International Law Commission, introducing its report on its seventy-fifth session (document A/79/10), reported that the Commission’s session had been reduced from 12 to 10 weeks due to the UN’s liquidity crisis. Nevertheless, while the session was intense due to its reduced length, it was productive. Aside from substantive work and the re-established Working Group on the Long-term Programme of Work, the Commission continued its consideration of proposals for new topics, including seven proposals introduced in the current session. Further, the Commission decided that its seventy-sixth session would be held in Geneva from 14 April to 30 May and from 30 June to 31 July 2025. Emphasizing the importance of having a 12‑week session due to the anticipated volume of work, he also reiterated the Commission’s recommendation to hold the first part of the seventy-seventh session, in 2026, in New York.
Turning to the report, and specifically Cluster I, he recalled that, in 2022, the Commission adopted a set of draft articles on Chapter 7 “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction” on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by one State with respect to an official of another State. The Commission began its second reading in 2024 with the view of completing the work in 2025. With regard to Chapter 10 “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, the Commission re-constituted the Study Group that took up a paper addressing statehood and the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. The Study Group discussed, inter alia, various bases for the continuity of statehood and considered possible elements for the legal protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. It held discussions on 12 elements of the additional paper, noting that these can be further developed and specified.
Addressing Cluster II and Chapter 4 “Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties”, he noted that the second report of the Special Rapporteur, reviewed by the Commission discussed “international disputes”. After the debate in plenary, the Commission referred four proposed guidelines to the Drafting Committee. Further, on Chapter 5 “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, the Commission, decided to refer draft conclusions 6, 7 and 8 — as proposed by the Special Rapporteur in his second report, to the Drafting Committee. Upon consideration of the Drafting Committee’s report, the Commission provisionally adopted these draft conclusions. In addition, the Commission also provisionally adopted draft conclusions 4 and 5, as orally revised.
Taking up Cluster III, he said that in regards to Chapter 6 “Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea”, the Commission decided to refer draft articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 to the Drafting Committee, which provisionally adopted draft article 4 “General obligations”. It appointed Louis Savadogo as Special Rapporteur for the topic and will continue its discussion on this topic in 2026. No draft provisions were proposed by the Special Rapporteur in the first report on Chapter 7 “Non-legally binding international agreements”. The main issues discussed were the scope of the topic and the terminology to be used, among others. The Working Group on Chapter 9 “Succession of States in respect of State responsibility”, was reconstructed and held two meetings focused on the way forward to complete the work on the topic. This Working Group recommended that the Commission establish a Working Group at its seventy-sixth session to draft a report and bring the Commission’s work on the topic to an end, he said.
“The Commission and the Sixth Committee have a shared interest in the progressive development of international law and its codification which goes beyond the founding of the United Nations”, he noted. Emphasizing that the work of the two bodies during the debate on the annual report provides a useful framework for enriching the Commission’s work product, he added: “During the coming days, my colleagues and I look forward to hearing comments and observations from you all.”
In the ensuing discussion, legal advisors and delegations discussed the three chapters in Cluster I of the International Law Commission’s report.
Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction
The representative of Belarus said he shared the concerns of some States that certain draft articles’ provisions seek to establish completely new norms that restrict the area activities and immunities of officials. In that regard, the discussions on the future forms of draft articles are premature. Turning to draft article 2.b, he said that there is a presumption of immunity of a State official in all of their acts irrespective of whether that goes beyond their remit or not. He, thus, suggested to reflect this aspect in draft article 2 or in another part of the draft articles and to “shed light” on the concept of “in the exercise of State authorities”. Draft article 4 should be more flexible in its wording not to prevent ratione personae immunity just for State officials as part of “Troika”, he added.
The representative of Brazil observed that draft article 7 does not reflect customary international law, noting that the practice related to it lacks broad opinio juris. He pointed to a “clear imbalance” in the consideration of the practice of developed and developing States, observing: “Over 96 per cent of national courts decisions referred to in the commentaries are from developed States, with less than 4 per cent of all 101 cases mentioned are from developing countries.” Noting that the Commission should reconsider article 7, he said that if it decides to retain this article, it should state in its commentaries that this article does not reflect existing rules of customary international law.
Meanwhile, Poland’s delegate said that if the provision in draft article 1, paragraph 3, was to remain in the text, the phrase “in relation between the parties to such agreements” should be deleted, as it can be interpreted as questioning the jurisprudence of certain international criminal courts and tribunals, including International Criminal Court. Against this background, there is a need for more explanation from the Commission — either in draft article 2 or in the commentary — on how the term “exercise of criminal jurisdiction” used throughout the draft articles should be understood.
Sea-level rise in relation to international law
“It is all the more important to clarify the possible consequences of this phenomenon according to the international law,” Italy’s delegate stressed. He welcomed the proposal to consider the preparation of a set of draft conclusions aiming to recognize the existing international norms relevant to this sector. This would aim to define a common framework of reference for protecting the inalienable rights of persons affected by sea-level rise and assuring the continuity of statehood as a key principle of international law in such an event.
For his part, European Union’s representative, in its capacity as observer, said that the recent advisory opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on climate change demonstrates that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — “the constitution for the oceans” — lays down specific law obligations on States in this context. Further recalling that the Tribunal found that States Parties to the Convention have the specific obligation to assist vulnerable developing States in their efforts to address marine pollution from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, he reported that the bloc contributes financially to several initiatives in small island developing States.
Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission
Speaking for the African Group, the representative of Uganda reiterated that the International Law Commission should develop relationships with regional international law commissions, such as the African Union Commission on International Law. It should also redouble its efforts to draw inspiration from the main principal legal systems reflective of the contemporary world, including African sources and principles. Recalling that only one African member served as a Special Rapporteur and another as co-Chair of a Study Group, he underlined the importance of equitable geographical representation. He further called for the establishment of the trust fund to assist Special Rapporteurs from developing countries.
Mexico’s representative welcomed the inclusion of the two new topics in this session. The first — “Compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts” — will complement the Commission’s work on States’ international responsibilities. Meanwhile, the second — “Due diligence in international law” — could provide clarity to States so they can comply with their obligations in this area. Noting that the Commission should move the topic of universal jurisdiction to its current programme of work, he also called on States to continue to promote the careers of female jurists in international law. He welcomed the new women within the Commission’s membership, adding: “Gender equality must be an objective in that, and all other, legal forums.”