General Assembly Endorses Nice Ocean Conference Declaration, Adopts $5.38 Billion Peacekeeping Budget
The General Assembly today endorsed the political declaration of the United Nations Ocean Conference, which establishes multilateral ocean governance. It also adopted the $5.38 billion peacekeeping budget for the year starting 1 July.
Titled “Our Ocean, Our Future: United for Urgent Action” (A/79/L.97), the declaration was adopted by acclamation at the close of the Conference held earlier this month in Nice, France. However, today’s formal endorsement by the 193-member Assembly required a recorded vote, with 162 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.
Several delegations objected to the vote, with the representative of France, co-host of the Conference along with Costa Rica, highlighting its strong political declaration and robust initiatives for the future as “a victory for the ocean”. “The ocean doesn't know borders” and neither should “our efforts to protect it", said Costa Rica’s delegate, noting his country’s “steadfast” commitment to protecting the oceans. He welcomed the momentum generated at the Conference for an early entry into force of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement). He also hailed promises to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement to end subsidies for overfishing and decisive support for a plastic pollution convention as soon as possible.
Brazil’s representative noted that the seas are “the planet’s main climate regulator” but “are running a fever”, while Australia’s delegate saw the adoption of this text as a testament to a collective commitment to address the urgency of climate change, biodiversity loss, and ocean pollution. The United States’ delegate said the focus on implementing Sustainable Development Goal 14 is inconsistent with its position on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Iraq’s delegate, speaking for the Group of 77 and China, noted that implementing Goal 14 requires more ambitious financial action, fulfillment of commitments made through intergovernmental agreements, and increased resources for small island developing States (SIDS) and least developed countries.
For her part, Venezuela’s delegate noted she had joined the consensus, while reiterating that it was not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is “not the only single legal and regulatory framework for oceans and seas” — a position echoed by representatives of Iran, Türkiye, and El Salvador.
Meanwhile, Argentina’s representative disassociated his delegation from all paragraphs referring to the 2030 Agenda and the Pact for the Future, as well as all paragraphs contradicting the guiding principles of the protection of life, liberty, and private property.
The Russian Federation’s delegate disassociated from the consensus on paragraph 26 of the declaration, which emphasizes the importance of the early entry into force of the BBNJ Agreement. The instrument would undermine the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks, with its norms allowing for impingement on the mandates and competencies of fisheries organizations.
Japan’s representative hailed the adoption as “not the end but just the beginning of our renewed commitment to achieving SDG 14”, while Singapore’s delegate stated that the Convention on the Law of the Sea remains the “constitution for the oceans”, calling on Member States to fully respect it.
$5.38 Billion Budget for Peacekeeping Operations
Acting on the recommendations of its Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), the Assembly also allocated a budget of $5.38 billion to 11 UN peacekeeping operations, the support account for these operations, the Regional Service Centre in Entebbe, and the Logistics Base in Brindisi. These resolutions were adopted without a vote, with the exception of the resolution on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) (A/C.5/79/L.36/Rev.1), which was adopted by 147 votes in favour to 3 against (Argentina, Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (Paraguay), after an oral amendment proposed by Israel was rejected by 5 votes in favour (Argentina, Canada, Israel, Paraguay, United States) to 83 against, with 57 abstentions.
The Assembly further adopted a draft resolution on the “Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects” (A/79/424/Add.1), which was approved and forwarded by its Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).
Tackling Illicit Trafficking in Wildlife
The Assembly then adopted, by 157 votes in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions, a draft resolution (A/79/L.96) submitted by the representative of Germany, by which the Assembly urges Member States to reinforce their efforts and adopt effective measures, as necessary, including by using special investigative techniques, consistent with article 20 of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish crimes that affect the environment, such as illicit trafficking in wildlife and wildlife products, which encompasses poaching and illegal harvesting of timber, including fauna and flora as protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Speaking in explanation of position, the United States delegate noted that the text contained matters that “should be discussed in Vienna-based anti-crime fora rather than in the General Assembly”. Further, he opposed the use of the term “gender mainstreaming,” insisting on the “biological reality of sex”. For his part, Argentina’s representative dissociated his delegation from all paragraphs concerning the 2030 Agenda and those that go against the protection of life and private property, including preambular paragraphs 1, 2, 18, 34 and operative paragraph 27.
Promoting Interreligious, Intercultural Dialogue, Tolerance in Countering Hate Speech
The Assembly also adopted a draft resolution (A/79/L.98) on combating hate speech, introduced by Morocco, by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 44 abstentions. By the text, the Assembly called upon Member States to increase understanding about the spread and impact of hate speech, while continuing to adhere to relevant international human rights law obligations, as well as relevant United Nations instruments, in particular the Rabat Plan of Action. Further, the Assembly called upon digital technology companies and developers to continue to develop solutions and publicly communicate actions to counter potential harms, including hate speech, bias and discrimination, from artificial intelligence-enabled content, including such measures as ensuring data integrity, incorporation of safeguards into artificial intelligence model training processes, identification of artificial-intelligence-generated material, authenticity certification for content and origins, labelling, watermarking and other techniques.
Poland’s delegate, speaking for the European Union, whose members abstained from voting, emphasized that freedom of belief and religion applies to individuals, not objects or symbols, expressing reservations about preambular paragraph 14.
The wording of that paragraph presents “serious concerns” in terms of freedom of expression and religious pluralism, noted the representative of Costa Rica, which further emphasized that combating hate speech cannot be achieved at the expense of freedom of expression.
Hungary’s delegate indicated she could not support operative paragraph 23, which highlights one specific group, migrants, while the representative of the United Kingdom, who also abstained, refused to consider a text criticizing religion as incitement to hatred.
Any restriction on freedom of expression must be circumscribed by law, necessary, and proportionate, argued Switzerland’s delegate, emphasizing that human rights protect individual beings, not religions or objects. Furthermore, defamation of religions or religious defamation are not legal concepts recognized under international law. For all these reasons, she voiced regret over the wording of preambular paragraph 14.
For his part, Brazil’s delegate dissociated itself from paragraphs 11, 12, and 13, given that there is no agreed definition of hate speech and that this concept could be politicized. Canada’s representative remained committed to the principle that everyone can exercise their freedom of belief and religion without fear of violence, also welcoming the attention paid to new technologies, while voicing concern over the wording of preambular paragraph 14 on acts directed against religious symbols and holy books.
The Wiphala for Living Well in Harmony, Balance, Complementarity with Mother Earth
The Assembly further adopted, by a recorded vote of 139 votes in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel), with 5 abstentions (Canada, Georgia, Paraguay, Peru, Türkiye), a draft resolution (A/79/L.95) introduced by Bolivia, who noted the Wiphala is “an age-old symbol born out of the deepest roots of Indigenous Peoples,” an expression of “the seven colors of the rainbow” and living in harmony with Mother Earth. By the text, the Assembly called upon the international community to advance in the understanding, tolerance and solidarity among all peoples and cultures, and to strengthen efforts to eradicate manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including against Indigenous Peoples, and promote respect for the diversity of their cultural manifestations, traditions, practices and knowledge systems.
The United States representative, speaking before the vote, noted his delegation opposed the resolution’s focus on a single Indigenous community, further stating that the symbol remains controversial.
Mexico’s representative voiced regret that the Wiphala is limited to Bolivia and nearby regions, while Peru’s delegate pointed out that the text does not sufficiently detail the exact cultural origin of the symbol, and that the concept does not have a defined definition in a UN context.
While recognizing the cultural importance of the Wiphala for certain peoples of the Andean region, Canada’s delegate considered it inappropriate for the Assembly to designate a symbol specific to a geographical area as representing all Indigenous Peoples internationally. This choice must be made by the Indigenous Peoples themselves, not by the UN, he said.