![](/law/cod/sixth/59/gaimages/leftborder.gif) |
![](/law/cod/sixth/59/agenda0.gif)
![](/law/cod/sixth/59/bureau0.gif)
![](/law/cod/sixth/59/current0.gif) ![](/law/cod/sixth/59/summary2.gif)
![](/law/cod/sixth/59/docs0.gif)
|
Summaries
of the work of the
Sixth Committee
(Informal summary prepared by the Secretariat
for reference purposes only)
|
|
free PDF format viewer
|
|
|
Agenda
item 138
|
Nationality
of natural persons in relation to the succession of States
Background (Source: A/59/100)
At its fifty-fourth session, in 1999, the
General Assembly, under the item entitled Report of
the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first
session, considered chapter IV of the report of the
Commission (A/54/10 and Corr.1 and 2), which contained the
final draft articles on nationality of natural persons in
relation to the succession of States. The Assembly, noting
that the Commission had recommended the draft articles to
the General Assembly for their adoption in the form of a
declaration, decided to include in the provisional agenda
of its fifty-fifth session an item entitled Nationality
of natural persons in relation to succession of States,
with a view to the consideration of the draft articles and
their adoption as a declaration at that session; and invited
Governments to submit comments and observations on the question
of a convention on the topic, with a view to the General
Assembly considering the elaboration of such a convention
at a future session (resolution 54/112).
At its
session, the General Assembly took note of the articles
on nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession
of States and invited Governments to take into account,
as appropriate, the provisions contained therein when dealing
with issues of nationality of natural persons in relation
to the succession of States (resolution 55/153).
Background documentation:
Summary record: A/C.6/55/SR.31
Report of the Sixth Committee:
A/55/610
Plenary meeting: A/55/PV.84
Resolution: 55/153
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 138
at its 15th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 28 October and 17 November 2004.
Statements were made by the representatives
of the Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union; the
Candidate Countries Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia;
the countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process
and potential Candidate Countries Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia and
Montenegro; and the EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein
and Norway, member of the European Economic Area), the Lao
People's Democratic Republic, the Czech Republic, Japan,
United States of America, Belarus, Poland, Cote d'Ivoire,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Russian Federation and Mexico.
Delegations expressed their support for
the draft articles on the Nationality of natural persons
in relation to the succession of States adopted by the International
Law Commission in 1991, and stressed the positive contribution
they have already brought to the codification and progressive
delevopment of international law in this important field.
It was noted, in this regard, that the recent Council of
Europe draft "Protocol on the avoidance of statelessness
in relation to State sucession" builds upon the draft
articles prepared by the ILC, and incorporates many of their
provisions. While expressing satisfaction with the general
approach of the draft articles, some delegations noted that
certain provisions could be further clarified or modified.
Regarding the future form of the draft
articles, some delegations favored their adoption in the
form of a Convention. Others delegations favored the adoption
of the draft article in the form of a declaration, as originally
suggested by the ILC. Some delegations expressed a preference
for giving governments more time to submit comments on this
question, and recommended reconsidering the item at a later
session. It was further noted that, even in their current
form, the draft articles fullfill their purpose in providing
governments with a reliable and uniform set of legal norms
to be considered in the preparation of domestic legislation.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 17 November 2004, the representative of Greece
introduced draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.24.
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted
draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.24 without a vote.
The Committee concluded its consideration
of agenda item 138.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2008)
|
|
|
Agenda
item 139
|
Responsibility of
States for internationally wrongful acts
Background (Source: A/59/100)
At its
session, in 2001, the General Assembly, under the item entitled
"Report of the International Law Commission on the
work of its fifty-third session", considered chapter
IV of the report of the Commission, which contained the
draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally
wrongful acts together with a recommendation that the Assembly
take note of the draft articles and that it consider, at
a later stage, in the light of the importance of the topic,
the possibility of convening an international conference
of plenipotentiaries to examine the draft articles on responsibility
of States for internationally wrongful acts with a view
to concluding a convention on the topic.
The General Assembly took note of the articles, the text
of which was annexed to resolution 56/83, and commended
them to the attention of Governments without prejudice to
the question of their future adoption or other appropriate
action (resolution 56/83).
Background documentation:
Report of the International Law Commission
on the work of its fifty-third session: Supplement
No. 10 and corrigendum (A/56/10 and Corr.1)
Summary records: A/C.6/56/SR.11-24 and 27
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/56/589 and Corr.1
Plenary meeting: A/56/PV.85
Resolution: 56/83
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 139
at its 15th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
16th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
25th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 28 and 29 October and on 9 and 17 November
2004.
Statements were made by the representatives
of the Netherlands, Brazil, Japan, China, the United States,
Belarus, Israel, the United Kingdom, Finland (on behalf
of the Nordic countries), Portugal, Greece, Slovakia, Australia
(also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand), Austria, Spain,
Uruguay, Venezuela, Guatemala, Thailand, Cyprus, France,
Jordan, Germany, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Mexico,
Italy and Cuba. It was recalled that the International Law
Commission had adopted the draft articles on Responsibility
of States for internationally wrongful acts in 2001, at
which time it had recommended that the General Assembly
take note of the articles and that it consider at a later
stage, in light of the importance of the topic, the possibility
of convening an international conference of plenipotentiaries
with a view to concluding an international convention on
the topic. The Assembly, in resolution 56/83 commended the
draft articles, which were attached to the resolution, to
member Governments and decided to place the item on the
agenda of its fifty-ninth session.
All speakers commended the Commission for
its valuable work in concluding the draft articles in 2001,
which, for many, constituted a landmark event in the codification
and progressive development of international law. Indeed,
many speakers commented on the positive reaction the draft
articles had since received in the international legal community
since 2001. Particular reference was made to recent examples
of international courts and tribunals having had resort
to certain provisions of the draft articles as the authoritative
statement of the law in this area, most recently by the
International Court of Justice in its opinion on the Legal
Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory. Some speakers also pointed to some
of the more controversial provisions of the draft articles.
Different views were, however, expressed
as to the eventual form of the draft articles. Several speakers
spoke in favour of convening an international conference
of plenipotentiaries to negotiate an international convention,
even if at a later stage, which would solidify their legal
status under international law. Some even suggested establishing
an Ad Hoc Committee or Working Group to commence the preparatory
work towards such a conference. Other speakers expressed
doubts as to the necessity of enshrining the articles in
a convention, especially since some of the provisions have
already come to be accepted as part of general international
law. The suggestion was made that the Secretariat be requested
to prepare a collection of international practice in this
area to assist the Sixth Committee in deciding how to proceed.
Several delegations suggested postponing
the consideration of the draft articles to later sessions
of the General Assembly (ranging from the 60th to the 64th
sessions) so as to allow States more time to consider their
impact on international relations, and hence the advisability
of enshrining them in an internationally legally binding
instrument.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 25th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 9 November 2004, the representative of Trinidad
and Tobago introduced draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.22.
At the 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 17 November 2004, the Committee adopted draft
resolution A/C.6/59/L.22 without a vote.
The Committee concluded its consideration
of agenda item 139.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2007)
|
|
|
Agenda
item 140
|
Status
of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts
Background (Source: A/59/100)
This item was included in the agenda of
the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly, in 1982,
at the request of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (A/37/142).
The General Assembly considered the question biennially
at its thirty-seventh to fifty-fifth sessions (resolutions
37/116, 39/77, 41/72, 43/161, 45/38, 47/30, 49/48, 51/155,
53/96 and 55/148).
At its
session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General
to submit to the Assembly at its fifty-ninth session a report
on the status of the Additional Protocols relating to the
protection of victims of armed conflicts, as well as on
measures taken to strengthen the existing body of international
humanitarian law, inter alia, with respect to its dissemination
and full implementation at the national level, based on
information received from Member States and the International
Committee of the Red Cross (resolution 57/14).
Background documentation:
Report of the Secretary-General:
A/57/164 and Add.1
Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.7 and 18
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/57/559
Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52
Resolution: 57/14
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 140
at its 5th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
16th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 23rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 13 and 29 October and 8 November 2004.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Netherlands (on behalf of the twenty-five Member States
of the European Union, the Candidate countries Bulgaria,
Croatia and Romania, the countries of the Stabilisation
and Association Process and potential Candidate countries
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslave Republic
of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, and the EFTA countries
Iceland and Liechtenstein, members of the European Economic
Area), Switzerland, Japan, United Arab Emirates, Cuba, Palestine,
Thailand, China, Ukraine, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic
Countries), Republic of Korea, Mexico, Algeria, Russian
Federation, Tunisia (on behalf of the Arab Group), Guatemala
and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Speakers spoke about the importance of
the four Geneva Conventions and the two Additional Protocols
and the need for those States that have not already done
so to ratify these legal instruments. They also focused
on the need to make the declaration under article 90 of
Additional Protocol I to accept the competence of the International
Fact-finding Commission. It was stressed that ratification
was only the first step, that it was equally important to
apply international humanitarian law. In this regard, some
speakers enumerated their Government's efforts, such as
the implemention of relevant national legislation and the
dissemination of the law to the various sectors of society.
Several speakers expressed concern over
the increasing numbers of civilians being targetted in armed
conflicts and that, therefore, it was incumbent on States
to respect bodies dealing with international humanitarian
law, such as the International Court of Justice, and further
to establish more multilateral mechanisms for implementing
the legal instruments. The promise of the International
Criminal Court in its capacity to strengthen international
humanitarian law also was mentioned by several speakers.
Many speakers expressed their appreciation
for the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross
in the promotion of international humanitarian law and in
the ICRC's provision of assistance to Governemnts in its
implementation.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 16th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the representative of Sweden introduced draft resolution
A/C.6/59/L.13, as orally revised.
At the 23rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.13,
as orally revised, without a vote.
The Committee concluded its consideration
of agenda iem 140.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2006)
|
|
|
Agenda
item 141
|
Consideration of
effective measures to enhance the protection, security and
safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives
Background (Source: A/59/100)
This item was included in the agenda of
the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly, in 1980,
at the request of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden (A/35/142).
The General Assembly considered the item annually at its
thirty-sixth to forty-third sessions, and biennially thereafter
(resolutions 36/33, 37/108, 38/136, 39/83, 40/73, 41/78,
42/154, 43/167, 45/39, 47/31, 49/49, 51/156, 53/97 and 55/149).
At its
session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General
to submit to the Assembly at its fifty-ninth session a report
containing (a) information on the state of ratification
of, and accessions to, the instruments relevant to the protection,
security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions
and representatives; and (b) a summary of the reports on
serious violations involving diplomatic and consular missions
and representatives and actions taken against offenders,
received from States, as well as of the views of States
with respect to any measures needed to enhance the protection,
security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions
and representatives (resolution 57/15).
Background documentation:
Reports of the Secretary-General:
A/57/99 and Corr.1 and Add.1 and 2 and A/INF/56/6 and
Add.1)
Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.2, 3, 17 and 18
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/57/560
Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52
Resolution: 57/15
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 141
at its 5th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
14th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 16th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 13, 26 and 29 October 2004.
Statements were made by the representatives
of the Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union, the
Candidate countries Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Turkey,
the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process
and potential Candidates countries Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro,
and the EFTA countries Iceland and Liechtenstein, members
of the European Economic Area), Norway (on behalf of the
Nordic countries), Cuba, Australia, Burkina Faso, Indonesia
and Mali.
The delegations acknowledged the importance
of the recent Secretary General's report on this item (A/59/125
and Add.1) and encouraged all States to follow the reporting
procedure. They noted with satisfaction the fact that since
the previous report on the topic, 32 additional States became
parties to the relevant international instruments and appealed
to all States that are not yet parties to these instruments
to become so, with a view to make them truly universal.
They all voiced their concern and condemned the continuing
acts of violence against the security and safety of diplomatic
and consular missions and their representatives.
States pledged to respect their obligations
under international law and to continue to take all the
necessary measures in order to protect the diplomatic and
consular missions and the representatives within their territories.
The need to respect the laws of the receiving States was
also stressed.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 14th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 26 October, the representative of Finland introduced
draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.14, entitled "Consideration
of effective measures to enhance the protection, security
and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives".
At its 16th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 29 October, the Committee adopted draft resolution
A/C.6/59/L.14 without a vote
The Committee concluded its consideration
of this item.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2006)
|
|
|
Agenda
item 142
|
Convention
on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property
Background (Source: A/59/100)
At its forty-sixth session, in 1991, the General Assembly,
recognizing the desirability of the conclusion of a convention
on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property,
decided to establish an open-ended Working Group of the
Sixth Committee to examine: (a) issues of substance arising
out of the draft articles in order to facilitate a successful
conclusion of a convention through the promotion of general
agreement; and (b) the question of the convening of an international
conference, to be held in 1994 or subsequently, to conclude
a convention on the subject (resolution 46/55).
The General Assembly continued its consideration of the
item at its forty-seventh to forty-ninth and fifty-second
to fifty-fourth sessions (decisions 47/414 and 48/413 and
resolutions 49/61, 52/151, 53/98 and 54/101).
At its fifty-fifth session, the General Assembly, having
considered the report submitted by the Chairman of the open-ended
working group of the Sixth Committee established under resolutions
53/98 and 54/101, decided to establish an Ad Hoc Committee
on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property
(resolution 55/150).
The General Assembly continued its consideration of the
item at its fifty-sixth and fifty-seventh sessions (resolutions
56/78 and 57/16).
At its
session, the General Assembly decided to reconvene the Ad
Hoc Committee from 1 to 5 March 2004, with the mandate to
formulate a preamble and final clauses, with a view to completing
a convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and
their property, which will contain the results already adopted
by the Ad Hoc Committee; and requested the Ad Hoc Committee
to report to the Assembly at its fifty-ninth session on
the outcome of its work (resolution 58/74).
Background documentation:
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property:
Supplement No. 22 (A/59/22)
Summary records: A/C.6/58/SR.12, 13, 20 and
21
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/58/512
Plenary meeting: A/58/PV.72
Resolution:58/74
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 142
at its 13th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
14th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
21st
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 25th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 25 and 26 October and on 5 and 9 November 2004.
The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property introduced
the report of its third session.
Statements were made by the representatives
of the Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union; the
candidate Countries Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia;
the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process
and potential candidate Countries Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia and
Montenegro; and the EFTA Country Norway, Member of the European
Economic Area), India, Brazil (on behalf of the Rio Group),
Norway, Japan, the Republic of Korea, China, the United
Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Cuba, the United States
of America, Guatemala, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ukraine,
Switzerland, Nepal, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone,
Morocco, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Viet Nam and Malaysia.
Delegations welcomed the completion of
the Draft 51勛圖 Convention on the Jurisdictional
Immunities of States and their Property by the Ad Hoc Committee
at its third session, and called for its adoption at the
current Session of the General Assembly. Delegations noted
that the adoption of the Convention would constitute a significant
achievement and lead to a harmonization of the practice
of States in this area of international law, particularly
for those States that relied on customary international
law to shape their practice. It was emphasized that the
Draft Convention constituted a compromise text which reflected
a delicate balance designed to achieve consensus. In this
regard, it was noted that the draft Convention effectively
balanced the interests of developing and developed States.
While some delegations noted that certain provisions did
not fully meet their expectations, they favored the adoption
of the text as a whole. In this regard, some delegations
expressed the view that the criteria for determining the
commercial character of a contract or transaction should
have placed the nature and purpose tests on an equal footing.
Several delegations also expressed their
support for the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee that
a general understanding of the Ad Hoc Committee on the non-applicability
of the Convention to criminal proceedings be reflected in
the General Assembly resolution adopting the text. A suggestion
was also made to include within the relevant resolution
an encouragement to all States to become parties to the
Convention without reservations.
Several delegations expressed their support
for clarifications contained in the Statement of the Chairman
of the Ad Hoc Committee, and noted that they, together with
the commentaries of the International Law Commission, the
Reports of the Ad Hoc Committee and the text of the General
Assembly resolution adopting the draft Convention, would
form an important part of the travaux preparatoires on the
Convention. Some delegations also clarified their own interpretation
of several provisions of the draft Convention.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 21st
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 5 November, the representative of Austria, on
behalf of the Bureau, introduced draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.16,
entitled "51勛圖 Convention on jurisdictional
immunities of States and their property"; containing
the text of the 51勛圖 Convention in its annex.
At the 25th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 9 November, the Committee adopted draft resolution
A/C.6/59/L.16 without a vote.
The Committee thus concluded its consideration
of agenda item 142.
|
|
|
Agenda
item 143
|
Report
of the 51勛圖 Commission on International Trade Law
on the work of its thirty-seventh session
Background (Source: A/59/100)
The 51勛圖 Commission on International
Trade Law was established by the General Assembly at its
twenty-first session, in 1966, to promote the progressive
harmonization and unification of the law of international
trade (resolution 2205 (XXI)). It began its work in 1968.
The Commission originally consisted of 29 Member States
representing the various geographic regions and the principal
legal systems of the world. At its twenty-eighth and fifty-seventh
sessions, respectively, the Assembly increased the membership
of the Commission from 29 to 36 States (resolution 3108
(XXVIII)) and from 36 to 60 States (resolution 57/20).
At its fifty-eighth session, the General Assembly elected
43 members of the Commission (decision 58/407).
At the same session, the General Assembly, inter alia, took
note with satisfaction of the completion and adoption by
the Commission of the Model Legislative Provisions on Privately
Financed Infrastructure Projects; requested the Commission
and its secretariat, relying on its role as the core legal
body within the 51勛圖 system in the field of international
trade law, to take the lead in assuring cooperation and
coordination with the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, regional economic commissions and other international
organizations in the work on international legal texts and
propose appropriate and widely accepted international standards
with due respect to the distinctive objectives of the Commission
and the international financial institutions; appealed to
Governments, the relevant bodies of the 51勛圖 system,
organizations, institutions and individuals, in order to
ensure full participation by all Member States in the sessions
of the Commission and its working groups, to make voluntary
contributions to the trust fund established to provide travel
assistance to developing countries that were members of
the Commission, at their request and in consultation with
the Secretary-General; and requested the Secretary-General
to keep under review the level of resources available to
the Commission in order to ensure its ability to carry out
its mandate (resolution 58/75).
Also at its
session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General
to publish the Model Legislative Provisions on Privately
Financed Infrastructure Projects and to ensure that they
became generally known and available (resolution 58/76).
Background documentation:
Report of the 51勛圖 Commission
on International Trade Law on its thirty-sixth session:
Supplement No. 17 (A/57/17)
Summary records: A/C.6/58/SR.2, 3 and 12
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/58/513
Plenary meeting: A/58/PV.72
Resolutions: 58/75 and 58/76
Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth
session:
The Sixth Committee considered agenda item
143, Report of the 51勛圖 Commission on International
Trade Law on the work of its thirty-seventh session, at
its 1st
(,
,
,
,
,
),
2nd
(,
,
,
,
,
),
14th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 16th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 4, 5, 26 and 29 October 2004, respectively.
At the 1st
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the Chairman of UNCITRAL at its thirty-seventh
session presented the report of the Commission.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Austria, China, Canada, Australia, the United States,
the United Kingdom, France, Morocco, Japan, India, Guatemala
Belarus, Singapore, Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic countries
(Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), Spain, Nigeria,
Indonesia, Kenya, Gabon, Sri Lanka, South Africa, the Russian
Federation, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Venezuela and
Thailand.
The speakers welcomed the adoption by UNCITRAL
of the Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law. The opinion
was expressed that the guide will be an immeasurable aid
in the development and adoption of effective national insolvency
regimes. Several speakers commended the Commission on the
progress it had achieved with regard to the various other
topics under consideration, including procurement, arbitration,
transport law, electronic commerce, insolvency law and security
interests.
Several delegations commended the efforts
of the Secretariat of UNCITRAL in organizing seminars and
briefing missions to promote awareness of its work in the
field of development and harmonization of international
trade law. The speakers stressed that the dissemination
of case law on UNCITRAL legal texts and the organization
of training and technical assistance programmes were important
components of UNCITRAL's work. In this connection, several
delegations advocated for adequate and sustained resources
for these programmes. A point was made that training funds
should be part of the regular budget. An appeal with regard
to voluntary contributions to the trust fund to facilitate
participation of developing countries in the Commisson's
work was also made.
Several speakers expressed their satisfaction
with regard to the enlargment of UNCITRAL and the strengthening
of its Secretariat. It was pointed out that the increase
in the number of members serve to provide broad participation
of States with different legal systems and will contribute
to the acceptance of adopted texts by all States.
Concern was expressed regarding the application
of uniform page limit rules for the Commission's documents.
The opinion was made that detailed and high quality documentation
are necessary to assist States in the understanding and
interpretation of legal rules prepared by the Commission.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 14th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 26 October, the representative of Austria introduced
a draft resolution entitled "Report of the 51勛圖
Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its
thirty-seventh session" (A/C.6/59/L.11).
At the same meeting, the Chairman of the
Committee introduced a draft resolution entitled "Legislative
Guide on Insolvency Law of the 51勛圖 Commission
on International Trade Law" (A/C.6/59/L.12).
At its 16th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolutions A/C.6/59/L.11
and A/C.6/59/L.12, without a vote.
After the adoption of the draft resolution
A/C.6/59/L.11, the representatives of the United States
of America and Japan made statements in explanation of position
(see A/C.6/59/SR.16).
The Committee thus concluded its consideration
of this agenda item.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2005)
|
|
|
Agenda
item 144
|
Report
of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-sixth
session
Background (Source: A/59/100)
The International Law Commission was established
by the General Assembly at its second session, in 1947,
with a view to giving effect to Article 13, paragraph 1
a, of the Charter. The object of the Commission is to promote
the progressive development of international law and its
codification. The Commission concerns itself primarily with
public international law, but it is not precluded from entering
the field of private international law (resolution 174 (II)).
The statute of the Commission, annexed to resolution 174
(II), was subsequently amended (resolutions 485 (V), 984
(X), 985 (X) and 36/39). The Commission consists of 34 members
elected for a term of five years. The last election was
held at the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly
(decision 56/311), and the next election will be held during
the sixty-first session.
At its
session, the General Assembly recommended that the Commission
continue its work on the topics in its current programme;
invited Governments to provide information regarding national
legislation, bilateral and other agreements and arrangements
relevant to the topic currently entitled "Shared natural
resources"; requested the Secretary-General to invite
States and international organizations to submit information
concerning their practice relevant to the topic "Responsibility
of international organizations"; encouraged Member
States to consider being represented at the level of legal
adviser during the first week in which the report of the
International Law Commission was discussed in the Sixth
Committee to enable high-level discussions on issues of
international law; and recommended that the debate on the
report of the International Law Commission at the fifty-ninth
session of the General Assembly commence on 1 November 2004
(resolution 58/77).
Background documentation:
Report of the International Law Commission
on the work of its fifty-fifth session: Supplement
No. 10 (A/58/10)
Summary records: A/C.6/58/SR.14-21 and 23
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/58/514
Plenary meeting: A/58/PV.72
Resolution: 58/77
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee commenced its consideration
of agenda item 144.
The Sixth Committee considered the item
at its 17th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
18th (,
,
,
,
,
),
19th (,
,
,
,
,
),
20th (,
,
,
,
,
),
21st (,
,
,
,
,
),
22nd (,
,
,
,
,
),
23rd
(,
,
,
,
,
),
24th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 25th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, from 1 to 9 November, and
at its 26th meeting on 17 November 2004.
The Chairman of the International Law Commission
at its fifty-sixth session introduced the report of the
Commission: chapters I to IV, VII and XI at the 17th meeting,
on 1 November; chapters V and VI at the 21st meeting, on
5 November; chapters VIII to X at the 23rd meeting, on 8
November.
Statements were made by the representatives
of the Netherlands (also on behalf of the European Union),
Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Norway (on behalf
of the Nordic countries), the Czech Republic, China, Argentina,
Italy, New Zealand, Finland (on behalf of the Nordic Countries),
the United States of America, Canada, Germany, Brazil, India,
Japan, Iran (Islamic Republic of), the United Kingdom, Guatemala,
France, Slovenia, Austria, Spain, Gabon, Mexico, the Republic
of Korea, Australia, Portugal, Belarus, Israel, Singapore,
Greece, Switzerland, Cuba, the Russian Federation, El Salvador,
Pakistan, Poland, Morocco, Romania, Kenya, Nigeria, Hungary,
Uruguay, Malaysia, Paraguay, Peru, Jordan, Venezuela, Nepal,
Belgium, Romania, Singapore, Sierra Leone, Denmark (on behalf
of the Nordic countries), the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and
Chile. The observer of the Council of Europe also made a
statement.
At the 21st meeting, on 5 November 2004,
the President of the International Court of Justice, H.E.
Judge Jiuyong Shi, made a statement.
Concerning the topic Diplomatic protection,
delegations commended the Commission for having completed
its first reading of the draft articles. It was noted that
the draft articles are closely related to, and should be
read in conjunction with, those on State responsibility.
Several delegations voiced their approval of the general
approach taken by the Commission, which was largely a codification
of existing international law, but included elements constituting
progressive development. In this regard, several delegations
also noted with appreciation the inclusion of a provision,
contained in draft article 8, extending diplomatic protection
to stateless persons and refugees. While noting with approval
some elements of the draft articles, it was also stressed
that the draft articles should be limited to the codification
of existing law. It was suggested that the text could form
the basis of a binding legal instrument.
With respect to Part I of the draft articles,
"General Provisions", some delegations welcomed
the Commission's decision to exclude functional protection
and the effects of diplomatic protection from the scope
of the draft articles. A view was also expressed urging
the Commission to re-examine the questions of functional
protection and the assertion of diplomatic protection by
international organizations, on second reading. Although
several delegations commended the Commission on its general
approach, shortcomings in the drafting were also noted.
Some delegations pointed out that draft text was ambiguous
as to whether other forms of protection provided by a State
to its nationals would fall within the scope of the draft
articles. It was suggested that the scope should be limited
to the formal action which a State undertakes in its own
right to protect its nationals. It was also suggested that
a clause might be added to clarify the relationship between
the protection of foreign investments through diplomatic
protection and directly through other means, such as bilateral
trade agreements. Some delegations noted with approval that
Article 2 sets forth the exercise of diplomatic protection
as a right and not a duty of States, although a view was
expressed that the discretionary nature of the right of
a State to exercise diplomatic protection could be further
emphasized. It was also pointed out that draft article 3
does not seem to cover the practice of the European Union
of allowing one member State to assert diplomatic protection
for the national of another member State in limited situations.
Regarding Part II of the draft articles,
entitled "Nationality", several delegations welcomed
the Commission's reliance on the traditional model of diplomatic
protection, based on the nationality of the injured party.
Some delegations welcomed the definition of nationality
of natural persons adopted by the Commission in Article
4, although it was suggested that a specific reference to
domestic law be included. It was also noted that, although
succession of States affects nationality, it should not
be listed as a means of acquiring nationality under draft
article 4. In addition, it was suggested that the transfer
of territory between States had been improperly omitted
from the list of means for acquiring a nationality. Divergent
views were expressed regarding the continuous nationality
requirement in draft article 5, with some delegations favouring
the requirement that the injured person be a national of
the protecting State at the time of the resolution of the
claim, while others supported the approach taken by the
Commission in limiting the requirement to the date of the
presentation of the claim. It was pointed out that, in its
present form, draft article 5 only required a person to
possess the nationality of the State offering diplomatic
protection at the time of injury and at the time of presenting
the claim. A suggestion was made that the exception to the
continuous nationality rule should only apply to an involuntary
change of nationality, in order to prevent "nationality
shopping".
With respect to draft article 6, some delegations
emphasized the difficulties posed by allowing multiple States
to exert diplomatic protection for injuries to individuals
maintaining multiple nationalities, and suggested possible
revisions. Furthermore, a suggestion was made that the term
"jointly" in draft article 6, paragraph 2 should
be strictly interpreted to exclude the possibility for two
or more States to offer diplomatic protection separately
for the same individual or in different fora. While some
delegations noted the central tenet of draft article 7,
which allows the State of "predominant nationality"
to assert a diplomatic protection claim against another
State of nationality, with approval, other delegations expressed
the view that the concept of "predominant nationality"
was unclear, and could lead to difficulties in the application
of the draft articles, given the lack of international standards.
It was suggested that the Commission rely on a formulation
emphasizing the connections of an individual to a State
rather than qualifying the individual's nationality. Some
delegations also expressed concern over the drafting of
article 7 and its commentaries. In this regard, support
was expressed for the traditional approach, under which
diplomatic protection claims could not be brought against
States of nationality of the injured party. A concern was
voiced that draft article 7 might contravene the principle
of the sovereign equality of States. It was also suggested
that draft article 7 be deleted.
While the inclusion of draft article 8, covering stateless
persons and refugees, was welcomed by many delegations,
it was suggested that the draft article should clarify that
the definition of the term "refugee" was broader
than that used in the 1951 Convention on refugees. Moreover,
it was suggested that the scope of this draft article could
be expanded to cover not individuals not residing in a State
both "lawfully and habitually". However, the Commission
was cautioned not to interfere with the existing regime
for the protection of refugees. A view was also expressed
that the extension of diplomatic protection to refugees
and stateless persons was undesirable at this time, since
it did not fall within the scope of the text.
As regards Chapter III of Part II of the
draft articles, concerning the diplomatic protection of
legal persons, several delegations welcomed the Commission's
approach to the protection of legal persons, based in part
on the International Court of Justice's judgment in the
Barcelona Traction case, which struck a delicate balance
between various competing interests. However, some delegations
suggested refinements to the criteria for determining the
nationality of a corporation in draft article 9. Delegations
differed on the appropriateness of the exceptions formulated
to the general rule that the State of nationality of corporate
shareholders may not exert protection for an injury to the
corporation in draft article 11. It was noted that determining
a single State of nationality would be problematic for both
legal and natural persons. The need for an article on the
protection of shareholders was questioned, since the protections
contained therein could be subsumed in articles covering
natural and legal persons. It was further questioned whether
providing protections to shareholders for injuries to a
corporation would not constitute protecting an investment
rather than an individual. It was noted that draft articles
10 and 12 seemed paradoxically to extend greater protections
to shareholders when they suffer lesser injuries.With respect
to article 13, extending protections to legal persons other
than corporations, some delegations were of the view that
it should contain references to Articles 11 and 12. Other
delegations considered this provision overly broad. A suggestion
was made to redraft draft article 13 as a "without
prejudice" clause, in light of the paucity of State
practice.
Regarding Part III, on "Local Remedies",
divergent views were expressed. Some delegations expressed
concern over some of the exceptions to the rule on the exhaustion
of local remedies, while others expressed its support for
the Commission's text. It was however emphasized that any
exceptions to the general rule must be cautiously considered.
It was suggested that the reference to "ordinary or
special" judicial bodies in draft article 14 was confusing
and unneccessary. A view was expressed that draft article
15 would not apply to diplomatic actions covered by draft
article 1 other than the bringing of diplomatic claims.
With respect to draft article 16, tt was suggested that
a separate exception to the rule should be formulated to
cover ships' crews.
Concerning Part IV, "Miscellaneous
Provisions", some delegations viewed the language of
draft article 17 as unclear and overly broad. In this respect,
it was emphasized that human rights treaty provisions should
prevail over general principles of diplomatic protection.
Regarding draft article 18, an amendment to narrow the scope
of the exception for special treaty provisions was suggested.
It was further suggested that draft articles 17 and 18 could
be combined. Regarding the right of flag States to exercise
diplomatic protection with regard to crew members of different
nationalities in draft article 19, delegations continued
to express differing views on its inclusion. Some delegations
expressed the view that it should be excluded since it falls
outside the scope of the draft articles and is unnecessary,
in view of the protections provided in draft article 17.
In response to the Commission's inquiry
in Chapter III of its report, delegations differed as to
whether the doctrine of clean hands should be excluded from
the draft articles.
Concerning the topic International liability
for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited
by international law (international liability in the
case of loss from transboundary harms arising out of hazardous
activities), delegations commended the Commission for completing
on first reading the draft principles on the allocation
of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of
hazardous activities. Delegations expressed support for
the general thrust of the draft principles adopted by the
Commission. In this regard, it was observed that the draft
principles were on the whole balanced and constituted a
positive development even though they did not extend to
global commons. It was further noted that the draft principles
and commentaries contained a wealth of material meriting
further indepth study.
With regard to the content of the draft
principles, some delegations expressed the view that the
draft principles were very general in character and potentially
had a very wide scope. It was noted that the draft principles
needed further improvements particularly in relation to
the use of terms and how prompt and adequate compensation
to victims of transboundary harm would be guaranteed. It
was also noted that it would be useful for the Commission
to clarify the status of the various draft principles since
the project did not seem to fall typically into an exercise
of codification or progressive development. It was stressed
that the draft principles should not be detrimental to the
interests of developing countries. Some delegations voiced
concern over the the broad definition of "damage"
and "environment". Some delegations endorsed the
principle of prompt and adequate compensation to victims
of transboundary harm. It was noted, however, that the "prompt
and adequate" required further elaboration. It was
also suggested that the relationship between the draft principles
and the rules of State responsibility needed further reflection
particularly in relation to the notion of the State as a
victim and in order to avoid possibilities of duplication
of claims.
Some delegations supported coverage of
the damage to the environment per se, while others opposed
it. It was suggested that the definition of "damage"
be revisited. Support was expressed for coverage of consequential
economic loss. It was observed that the procedural and substantive
minimum standards in the draft principles needed further
elaboration. Some delegations supported that primary liability
be on the operator, stressing that the element of command
and control should actually be reflected in the principles.
It was emphasized that the guiding principle should be that
the innocent victim should not bear the loss.
Some delegations supported strict operator
liability while others suggested the inclusion of fault
liability as well. The general language of draft principle
4 was not considered conducive to ensuring legal clarity
and certainty - thus, a preference for self executing language
imposing direct strict liability, which would be more reflective
of the polluter-pays principle was expressed.
Some delegations objected to the threshold
of significant harm as not supported in treaty practice,
while other delegations expressed support for the retention
"significant" as the threshold as in the draft
articles on prevention. It was suggested that a more elaborate
definition of significant damage be developed. A more prominent
role for the polluter pays principle was also favored. It
was noted that the no fault liability required further adjustment
since it seemed to be overly broad as to cover all aspects
concerning significant damage. It was also noted that no
fault liability did not relieve the victim of the burden
of proving causation and this aspect needed ameliorated.
A suggestion was made that the limited exceptions to liability
should be clearly specified. The role of the State in establishing
the applicable conditions for the liability of the operator
was also stressed. Some delegations noted that the element
of State liability contained in principle 4 was problematic.
Some delegations favoured a greater role
for the State, while others expressed the need for a limited
role of the State. In addition, it was suggested that the
role of the State or non-governmental organizations to espouse
claims ought to be made clearer. It was suggested that response
measures contained in draft principle 5 were outside the
scope of the draft principles. the importance of supplementary
funding mechanisms, including those involving the State
was highlighted. It also expressed the hope that at some
future stage the Commission will deal with issues concerning
global commons.
Some delegations suggested an additional principle on the
relationship with other rules of international law, including
the rules on State responsibility.
Concerning the final form, some delegations
expressed support for the adoption of a non-binding instrument,
such as draft principles. Guidelines to be used as a basis
for negotiations were also suggested as a possible outcome.
Adoption in the form of a declaration or a model law was
also suggested. In this regard, it was noted that time was
not ripe for a binding general liability regime. It was
also noted that the draft principles were clearly innovative
and inspirational in character and not descriptive of current
law or State practice. Other delegations favoured the adoption
of draft articles which would be transformed into a binding
instrument, to complement the draft articles on prevention.
It was nevertheless pointed out that as a minimum the obligation
of States to take necessary measures to ensure that prompt
and adequate compensation is available to victims be incorporated
in the draft articles on prevention adopted by the Commission
in 2001. It was suggested that both the draft principles
and the draft articles on prevention should be annexed to
a General Assembly resolution, either together or separately.
Concerning the topic Responsibility
of international organizations, delegations welcomed
the work of the Commission. Support was expressed for the
decision to follow the appoach taken in the draft articles
on State responsibility in drafting the draft articles on
the responsibility of international organizations, although
it was also emphasized that the differences between States
and international organizations must be fully taken into
account. It was suggested that more time be taken to study
the practice of international organizations prior to drafting
texts, given the paucity of practice. In this regard, the
comments and observations on this topic submitted to the
Commission by international organizations, including the
51勛圖, were welcomed. It was pointed out that the
draft articles must take into account the practice of a
wide range of international organizations. It was therefore
suggested that specific rules may need to be formulated
to take into account the specialized practice of the European
Union, given its unique character.
With respect to the draft articles adopted
by the Commission at its 56th session, some delegations
expressed their support for the approach taken by the Commission,
while commenting on some areas of the draft articles that
could be improved on. Some delegations expressed support
for the formulation of draft article 4, and noted that the
definition for "agent" was based on the definition
of the I.C.J. in the Reparation for injuries case. However
some delegations were of the view that the definition of
"established practice of an organization" was
unclear. Some delegations expressed concern over the adoption
of a definition of "rules of an organization"
different from that contained in the 1986 Vienna Convention.
It was noted that the definition of "rules of an organization"
could be further refined to eliminate internal redundancy.
It was questioned whether "other acts" taken by
an organization could all be regarded as rules of an organization,
without a showing that they constituted "settled practice".
It was suggested that the definitions of "agent"
and "rules of an organization" contained in draft
article 4 be moved to draft article 2. It was suggested
that the set of criteria for determining the practice of
international organizations in draft article 4 could be
improved by inserting specific references to the general
principles of law of an organization and the case law of
an organization's court. It was further suggested that draft
article 4 might be clearer if agents and organs of States
were dealt with separately.
Regarding draft article 5, it was noted
that the criteria for attributing the conduct for the actions
of an agent or organ placed at the disposal of an international
organization by a State or another international organization
seemed overly focused on "factual control" rather
than "legal control". Some delegations questioned
the Commission's emphasis on the special case of UN peacekeepers
in the formulation of draft article 5. While some delegations
supported the "effective control" test adopted
by the Commission, some other delegations expressed their
concern that the term "effective control" was
not sufficiently well defined in the text. In this regard,
it was indicated that the draft articles on State responsibility
could assist in determining the meaning of the term "effective
control". It was also suggested that the term "effective
control" be re-evaluated in view of recent jurisprudence
of the ICTY adopting a less stringent "overall control"
test. In this regard, it was suggested that draft article
5 be divided into two separate provisions. It was also suggested
that draft articles 4 and 5 could be harmonized. Some delegations
stressed that the criminal jurisdiction of the State over
individuals should be kept separate from the determination
of who exercised effective control over an illegal act.
Some delegations expressed approval of the Commission's
definition of agent, while others expressed concern over
its vagueness and suggested an alternate text.
The view was expressed that the rules for
attribution in draft article 6 were inconsistent with those
in draft article 4 and suggested that the two articles be
combined in order to adopt a single standard.
Concerning draft article 7, on conduct
adopted by an international organization as its own, a view
was expressed suggesting its deletion, since the provision
was not considered applicable to international organizations.
On the other hand, support was also expressed for the Commission's
text.
Regarding the questions posed by the Commission
in Part III of its report, delegations expressed differing
views. With respect to the violation by an international
organization of obligations to its member States or agents,
some delegations distinguished between obligations to member
States and those to agents. While acknowledging that the
relationship between organizations and their member States
were largely defined by the internal rules of the organization,
some delegations supported the inclusion of a provision
covering this aspect of the responsibility of international
organizations. Other delegations, on the other hand, voiced
the view that such a provision should not be included. It
was noted that obligations to member States are contained
in the constitutive instruments of the international organization,
and are thus international legal obligations falling clearly
within the scope of the draft articles. Some delegations
also opposed the inclusion of a provision dealing with breaches
of obligations of international organizations to their agents,
while others endorsed it. In this regard, it was noted that
such a topic would require the consideration of complex
issues of the law of "fonction publique international".
Delegations also differed as to the inclusion of a provision
on necessity in the section on circumstances precluding
wrongfulness. It was pointed out that, while necessity could
apply to international organizations, the requirements for
claiming necessity would be much more restrictive than for
States. Regarding the attribution to international organizations
of conduct taken by States at their request or subject to
their authorization, some delegations expressed the view
that the conduct should be attributable to both the State
and the organization. Other delegations considered that
the attribution of conduct depended on whether the conduct
was requested or authorized, and the degree of participation
of an organization in the conduct of the State. The point
was also made that an international organization could only
bear responsibility for the breach of its own obligation.
It was suggested that the question could be rephrased in
order to clarify and narrow the scope of the response sought.
Regarding the topic, Shared natural
resources, some delegations expressed support for the
work of the Commission on the topic. It was noted that the
topic, which was scientifically and technically complex,
was of vital importance. Some delegations welcomed the informal
briefings conducted for the Commission by technical experts.
Caution was urged however against reliance on information
submitted by non-governmental organizations in the development
of the topic.
Some delegations welcomed the general framework
proposed by the Special Rapporteur as a good starting point
for future work. Concerning the scope of the topic, some
delegations welcomed the focus on transboundary ground waters
and the delimitations to aquifers and aquifer systems. Other
delegations, however concerns were expressed over the diminishing
scope of the topic with its limitation to aquifer and aquifer
systems. Some delegations agreed with the use of the phrase
"ground waters" instead of "shared natural
resources". On the other hand, a view was expressed
that the original terminology should be retained since it
only had connotations of common management not sovereignty
or common heritage. Some delegations noted that the focus
should not be limited to ground waters not covered by the
1997 Convention on the navigational uses of international
watercourses. It was suggested that the question of relationship
with the 1997 Convention should be addressed at a later
stage. It was also noted with satisfaction that the term
"aquifer" and "aquifer systems" were
employed for the topic instead of "ground waters".
It suggested that the definition of "aquifer"
amd "aquifer systems" include "sand, gravel
or soil" capable of yielding exploitable quantities
of water. Some delegations stressed the sovereignty of states
over groundwaters, and suggested that this principle be
reflected in the preamble or in a separate provision. In
this regard, the relevance of General Assembly resolution
1803 (XVIII) of 1962 on permanent sovereignty of natural
resources was recalled. It was stressed that the primary
purpose of the study should be to establish the proper use
of aquifers. Thus, the work should clearly set out provisions
concerning applicability, the uses of the activities, their
impact and likely impact on aquifers, as well as measures
of protection, preservation and management of aquifers.
Regarding the principles governing uses,
some delegations noted that the principles contained in
the 1997 Convention on the navigational uses of international
watercourses may serve as a basis for further work. Some
delegations agreed with the Special Rappoteur that the matter
required further study and that the principles contained
in the 1997 Convention should not be automatically transposed
as applicable to groundwaters. It was stressed that the
principles be adapted to the perculiar requirements of groundwaters.
It was also noted that the concept of equitable and reasonable
utilization would not be easily applied in respect of aquifers
which did not receive a recharge. Thus, some delegations
suggested that it was necessary to have specific provisions
dealing with non rechargeable aquifers. A view was expressed
that it would be inappropriate to apply principles of equitable
use and reasonable utilization for transboundary groundwaters.
Concerning the threshold, some delegations favoured "significant
harm", while others indicated the need for a lower
threshold, since groundwaters had peculiar characteristics
which required putting a greater emphasis on environmental
protection and prevention of pollution. It was also stressed
that the threshold of significant harm required further
clarification with specific criteria established for determining
harm.
Concerning other issues to be covered,
some delegations noted the importance of exchange of information,
and stressed that such exchange should be subject to considerations
of national interest, including national security. The need
for provisions on capacity development was also highlighted.
As to the approaches to be taken by the Commission, some
delegations preferred sectoral and context specific arrangements
dealing with specific problems. In this regard, some delegations
highlighted the importance of regional approaches. They
noted that the MERCOSUR countries had established an ad
hoc highlevel committee to develop a legal framework to
govern the rights and duties of states concerning the Guarani
Aquifer. The basic approach was to affirm that groundwaters
belonged to the territorial domain of the State under whose
soil they were located; that the Guarani aquifer was located
in the area comprised by the MERCOSUR countries; and that
each state had an obligation to ensure that its activities
did not cause significant harm.
As the to final form of the study, some
delegations expressed preference for draft articles. In
view of the relationship with the 1997 Convention on the
navigational uses of international watercourses it was suggested
that the formulation of draft articles should lead to the
adoption of a protocol to this instrument. Other delegations
preferred recommendations and guidelines for States, taking
into account the different characteristics of aquifers.
It was noted that another broad arrangement like the 1997
Convention were unlikely to garner support or to have impact
on state practice. Another group of delegations preferred
to take decision on the matter at a later stage.
With regard to the topic, Reservations
to treaties, some delegations welcomed the Special Rapporteur's
definition of objections to reservations, while acknowledging
the difficulty of this task. Some delegations indicated
that the difficulty in defining objections stemmed from
defining them by reference to their effects before even
the Commission has started work on the effects of reservations.
Some other delegations maintained that the definition of
objections could be established before the Commission deliberated
on their legal effects. A question was raised about the
necessity of defining objections to reservations. It was
noted that a definition of objections which took into consideration
their object and purpose was useful. A view was expressed
that the definition of objections should be drafted in a
general manner so as to cover a broad range of cases which
correspond to actual and well developed practice. The inclusion
of the element of intention of States in the definition
of objections was welcomed. The view was also expressed
that the intention of an objection is not usually to modify
the effects of the reservation. Moreover, an objecting State
might wish to object only to parts of a reservation and
this should be included in the definition of objections.
Some delegations considered the proposed definition of objections
overly broad. It was argued that the definition should focus
on the inopposability of the effects of reservation in the
relation between the objecting and the reserving States.
This definition could be revised when the effects of objections
are appropriately formulated. It was suggested that objections
to reservations should be formulated in conformity with
the principle of sovereignty of States. Consequently, objections
with super maximum effect have no place in international
law. Moreover, only parties to a treaty are entitled to
formulate objections to reservations made to that treaty.
It was noted that the definition of objections should also
take into account the distinction between objections and
political statements which do not have legal effects.
Delegations differed as to the terminology
most appropriate to use in connections with reservations.
Some delegations indicated that the term" admissibility"
would be most appropriate, while others favored the terms
"permissibility" or "permissible/impermissible"
and in French "illicite". It was suggested that
the term "validity" should not be used to qualify
such reservations, but some delegations stressed that the
term "validity" was the most appropriate term
to be used with regard to reservations. It was also noted
that the term "invalid" could be used as required.
The term "effectiveness" also received support,
being both sufficiently neutral and comprehensible. Some
delegations were of the view that both the terms "permissible/impermissible"
and "valid/invalid" could be used depending on
the circumstances.
It was noted that one of the most important
questions was that stemming from reservations made contrary
to the exceptions laid down in article 19 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties and the objections made
thereto. The view was expressed that the intention of both
parties should be taken into consideration in order to determine
the treaty relationship between a reserving and an objecting
State. It was suggested that, in the event of a dispute,
States parties should enter into a dialogue with the reserving
State in order to clarify the scope of the reservations.
Some delegations indicated that the ILC should continue
its work based on State practice and emphasizing rather
the scope if the effects of the reservation than the qualification
issue. It was emphasized that the crucial question, namely
the effect of reservations in relation with objections,
remained unsolved. Some delegations were of the view that
prohibited reservations were null and void and did not have
any legal effects. The Commission should perhaps establish
precise rules which would assist in deciding whether such
reservations constituted an essential element of the consent
of the State to be bound by the treaty. The distinction
between reservations incompatible with the object and purpose
of the treaty and other reservations prohibited by the treaty
was stressed. Taking into consideration the contractual
nature of treaties, it was suggested that States should
not be bound by a treaty to which they have made a reservation
which may be deemed to be incompatible with its object and
purpose. It was suggested that the future work of the Commission
should be based on case law including the Genocide case
and subsequent practice on the relevant provisions of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
With regard to the topic, Unilateral
acts of States, some delegations expressed doubts about
the continued work on this topic, while some others were
of the view that the prospects of work on the topic had
improved. Yet, some delegations reiterated the importance
they attached to the elaboration of a set of principles
applicable to unilateral acts as they represent a source
of legal norms.
Some delegations agreed with the recommendations
of the Working Group on the topic and thought that efforts
should be made to formulate some generally applicable rules.
Other delegations endorsed the setting up of a working group
by ILC to study selected cases of unilateral acts as well
as continued work on this topic. The study of practice should
continue through the establishment of a Working group with
this result in view, even should such rules be in the form
of guidelines.
In the context of the study of State practice
objective as well as subjective elements (will and intent
of the State) should be taken into account. A view was expressed
that the intention of a State should not be the sole criterion
of the legal character of a unilateral act since it was
subjective. Other criteria should also be considered such
as the object of a unilateral act in order to distinguish
them from acts of a purely political nature giving rise
to no legal repercussions. If the Commission finds it useful
to continue its work on this topic, even more detailed research
may be required before reaching any conclusion. Some delegations
indicated that the current definition makes it difficult
to distinguish between acts of political nature and those
of a legal nature. Further study of State practice and a
clear-cut distinction between the various forms of unilateral
acts of States are needed. Flexibility should be maintained
and to this aim, general rules should be elaborated only
for specific forms of unilateral acts, such as acts of recognition.
Moreover there should be some restriction on who can perform
unilateral acts on behalf of States. The Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties could provide a model of a possible
approach. Some delegations expressed the view that the purpose
of the study of unilateral acts is essential to identify
the nature of the act, taking also into account other factors
such as the context and circumstances of the unilateral
act, its content and form, etc.
It was considered that distinction should
be made between acts in terms of their legal consequences,
establishing categories of acts contributing to the development
of rules of customary international law or acts that create
specific legal obligations.
Concerning the topic, Fragmentation
of international law, delegations commended the Study
Group for its work on the topic, with some delegations welcoming
the current orientation. The Study Group was urged to proceed
with caution and take into account both the positive and
negative aspects of fragmentation. It was also urged to
focus on substantive and not institutional aspects of fragmentation.
It was noted that the study on fragmentation of international
law should assist in ensuring stability in the international
legal system. It was also noted that the topic provided
an opportunity for reflection, particularly on the relationship
of different rules and regimes in international law. It
was further noted that this topic was one which could usefully
benefit from an interactive debate in the Sixth Committee
or a seminar. A suggestion was made that the Study Group
should also include work on "Principles of the rule
of law in the international legal system".
Regarding the Chairman's study on the function
and scope of the lex specialis rule and the question of
self-contained regimes, some delegations supported the general
conclusion on the omnipresence of general international
law and the importance of accentuating it. Some delegations
agreed that the term self- contained regime was a misnomer
insofar as it sought to totally isolate a special regime
from general international law. However, it was noted that
the matter deserved closer attention because there existed
an important and functioning body of closed self contained
regimes. The need to consider further aspects of regime
failure was also noted. The focus that will be given for
next year to regional regimes and regionalism was welcomed.
Concerning the form that the work on the
topic should take, it was noted that from the inception
it was recognized that this topic was not a typical exercise
of codification and progressive development of international
law. If it was not feasible to aim for a normative product,
a substantive study on the substantive topic combined with
proposals dealing with conflicts would be highly welcomed.
Without prejudging the final outcome, it was suggested that
the issue may be resolved either by means of a resolution
interpreting the relevant of the provisions of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties or by amending those provisions.
Some delegations stressed the practical focus of the work
of the Study Group. It was noted that the topic was particularly
broad and theoretical. Some delegations indicated that a
more useful product would be an expository study to inform
Governments and other institutions on possible approaches
for dealing with fragmentation. A preference for draft articles
was also expressed. It was also noted that if guidelines
are to be formulated caution should be taken against extrapolating
any guiding principles from few specific cases or areas,
which may have had particular relevance only to subject-specific
settings. Other delegations reserved their position as to
the final outcome.
With regard to the working methods and
programme of work of the Commission, some delegations
recalled the 2003 initiative to revitalize the debate on
the Commission's report in the Sixth Committee and emphasized
the need for short and focused statements. In this regard,
it was emphasized that the debate in the Sixth Committee
should be better reflected in the work of the Commission
and, in this respect, forwarding the written statements
made in the Sixth Committee to the Commission was deemed
useful. Furthermore, the need to eliminate topics where
little progress is being made from the Commission's agenda
was reiterated. In particular, it was suggested that the
topic, Unilateral acts of States, be removed. It was stressed
that the Commission should focus its work on areas where
legal regulation is both lacking and desirable. It was emphasized
that the Commission should prioritize those topics on its
agenda where progress was assured. In this regard, it was
observed that whereas the topic "Fragmentation of international
law" seemed to be of more theoretical value, "Unilateral
acts of States" could be of practical use.
With regard to the programme of work, some
delegations welcomed the Commission's decision to include
the topics "Expulsion of aliens" and "Effects
of armed conflict on treaties" on its agenda and some
delegations also supported the inclusion of the topic, "Obligation
to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)"
on the Commission long term programme of work. However,
doubts were expressed regarding the appropriateness of the
latter topic. Uncertainty was also expressed with regard
to the scope of the topic "Expulsion of aliens".
Concern was expressed that new complex subjects had been
added to the Commission's agenda prior to finalizing the
existing ones.
The topic, "International disaster
response law", was suggested as a possible subject
for study. The possible consideration of a study on whether
and in what conditions the international community as a
whole and States have responsibility to protect in cases
of massive violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law was also suggested. A Model code of professional
conduct of advocates and counsel before the ICJ was also
mentioned as a possible future topic.
Support for maintaining summary records of the work of the
Commission was expressed.
The Chairman of the Commission made some
concluding remarks
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 17 November 2004, the representative of Hungary,
on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled
"Report of the International Law Commission on the
work of its fifty-sixth session" (A/C.6/59/L.23). He
suggested an amendment to operative paragraph 4 (a) of the
draft resolution which was accepted. The representative
of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya submitted a correction to
the Arabic version of the draft resolution.
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted
draft resolution A/C.6/59/L23, as amended, without a vote.
The Committee thus concluded its consideration
of agenda item 144.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2005)
|
|
|
Agenda
item 145
|
Report
of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country
Background (Source: A/59/100)
The Committee on Relations with the Host Country was
established by the General Assembly at its twenty-sixth
session, in 1971 (resolution 2819 (XXVI)). The Committee
is currently composed of the following 19 Member States:
Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire,
Cuba, Cyprus, France, Honduras, Hungary, Iraq, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mali, Russian Federation, Senegal,
Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and United States of America.
At its
session, the General Assembly endorsed the recommendations
and conclusions of the Committee on Relations with the Host
Country contained in paragraph 52 of its report; requested
the host country to continue to take all measures necessary
to prevent any interference with the functioning of missions;
welcomed the decision of the Committee to conduct a detailed
review of the implementation of the Parking Programme for
Diplomatic Vehicles, as recommended by the Legal Counsel
in his opinion on 24 September 2002, with a view to addressing
the problems experienced by some permanent missions, and
ensuring its proper implementation in a manner that is fair,
non-discriminatory, effective and consistent with international
law; and requested the Secretary-General to remain actively
engaged in all aspects of the relations of the 51勛圖
with the host country (resolution 58/78).
Background documentation:
Report of the Committee on Relations
with the Host Country: Supplement No. 26 (A/58/26)
Summary record: A/C.6/58/SR.22
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/58/515
Plenary meeting: A/58/PV.72
Resolution: 58/78
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Sixth Committee considered the item
at its 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 17 November 2004.
At the 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 17 November, the Chairman of the Committee on
Relations with the Host Country introduced the report of
that Committee.
Statements were made by the representatives
of the Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union, the
Candidate Countries Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, the Countries
of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential
candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, and the EFTA
countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic
Area), Malaysia, Indonesia, Cuba, the Russian Federation
and the United States of America.
Appreciation was expressed for the continued
commitment of the host country to fulfil its obligations
under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
the 51勛圖 and the Headquarters Agreement to provide
full facilities for the normal functioning of the missions
accredited to the 51勛圖, as well as for its efforts
to continue to ensure the security of those missions and
the safety of their personnel.
With respect to the Parking Programme for
Diplomatic Vehicles adopted in 2002, hope was expressed
that various shortcomings in its implementation would be
addressed by the host country and that it would be implemented
in a fair, non-discriminatory and effective manner and consistent
with international law. It was also stressed that the review
of the programme should continue with a view to addressing
practical difficulties experienced by Missions.
Delegations also referred to instances
of travel restrictions, delays in the issuance of entry
visas as well as custom delays, and urged the host country
to resolve existing problems in accordance with the Headquarters
Agreement.
The United States confirmed its commitment
to fulfil its obligations under international law and noted,
in particular, the success achieved in the implementation
of the Parking Programme for Diplomatic Vehicles.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the Chairman of the Committee on Relations with
the Host Country introduced draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.15
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted
draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.15, without a vote.
The Committee thus concluded its consideration
of the item.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2005)
|
|
|
Agenda
item 146
|
International
Criminal Court
Background (Source: A/59/100)
At its forty-ninth session, in 1994, the
General Assembly established an ad hoc committee to review
the draft statute for an international criminal court and
to consider arrangements for the convening of a conference
of plenipotentiaries to conclude a convention on the establishment
of such a court (resolution 49/53).
At its fiftieth session, the General Assembly established
the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International
Criminal Court (resolution 50/46). At its fifty-first session,
the Assembly decided that a diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries
should be held in 1998, with a view to finalizing and adopting
a convention (resolution 51/207). After the adoption by
the Conference of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court on 17 July 1998 and resolution F of the Final
Act of the Conference, which established the Preparatory
Commission for the International Criminal Court, the Assembly
continued its consideration of the item at its fifty-second
to fifty-seventh sessions (resolutions 52/160, 53/105, 54/105,
55/155, 56/85 and 57/23).
At its session, the General Assembly welcomed the holding of
the first and second resumptions of the first session of
the Assembly of States Parties (3 to 7 February and 21 to
23 April 2003, respectively) and the second session of the
Assembly of States Parties (8 to 12 September 2003), as
well as the election of judges and the Prosecutor and the
adoption of a number of instruments; took note of the establishment
of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression
by the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court; welcomed the establishment
of the Permanent Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties
to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
and invited the Secretary-General to take steps to conclude
a relationship agreement between the 51勛圖 and
the International Criminal Court and to submit the negotiated
draft agreement to the General Assembly for approval (resolution
58/79).
Background documentation:
Report of the Secretary-General:
A/58/372
Summary records: A/C.6/58/SR.9, 10, 12 and 13
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/58/516
Plenary meeting: A/58/PV.72
Resolution: 58/79
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee started its consideration
of agenda item 146 at its 6th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 14 October 2004.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Australia, the Netherlands
(on behalf of the twenty-five Member States of the European
Union, the Candidate countries Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania
and Turkey, the countries of the Stabilisation and Association
Process and potential Candidate countries Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia and
Montenegro, and the EFTA countries Iceland and Liechtenstein,
and members of the European Economic Area), Congo, Brazil
(also on behalf of the Rio Group), the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Norway, Sierra Leone, United Republic of Tanzania,
China, the United States of America, Cuba, the Russian Federation,
Ukraine, Uruguay, Japan, Costa Rica, Germany, the Gambia,
Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of CARICOM), Canada, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, New Zealand, Uganda and
Nigeria. The observer delegation of the International Committee
of the Red Cross also made a statement.
Many speakers expressed their firm support
for the International Criminal Court, emphasizing its key
role in furthering the cause of justice and the rule of
law in the international system and in serving as a bulwark
against impunity. Several speakers encouraged the Security
Council to carry out the role envisaged for it under the
Statute by referring situations to the Court. Many further
spoke about the need to ensure that the Court has the necessary
resources to undertake its historic mandate in an effective
manner. It was noted, with satisfaction, that the number
of Parties to the Court was approaching 100 (97 States are
presently Parties to the Statute). Particular appreciation
was also expressed to the Secretary-General for his repeated
expressions of support for the Court, and reference was
made, with approval, to the conclusion of the relationship
agreement between the Court and the 51勛圖 on 4
October 2004. Many speakers referred to several other key
events that had taken place over the last year including:
the appointment of Ms. Fatou Bensouda (the Gambia) as the
second Deputy Prosecutor; the entry into force of the Agreement
on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court; the progress
made in relation to the Victims' Trust Fund; the non-renewal
of Security Council resolution 1487; and the announcement
by the Prosecutor of the first two investigations into crimes
allegedly committeed (in the DRC and Uganda) and that his
office was considering six other situations on four continents.
Support was further expressed for periodically holding future
sessions of the Assembly of States Parties in New York (as
well as for the establishment of a liaison office in New
York), and it was noted that the 2005 elections for six
of the judges would be held at a session of the Assembly
convened in New York for that purpose. Particular reference
was also made to the need for the Special Working Group
on the Crime of Aggression to be given sufficient time and
resources to conclude its work on a definition of the crime
of agression by the time of the review conference in 2009.
It was also suggested that representatives of the Court
be invited to attend relevant meetings of the Organs of
the 51勛圖, including those of the Security Council.
The United States again expressed its opposition
to the Court citing concerns relating to the scope of its
jurisdiction, due process rights, the question of accountability
of the Prosecutor and the judges, the relationship between
it and the Security Council and the possibility of politicization
of the Court.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 27th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 19 November 2004, the representative of the
Netherlands, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft
resolution entitled "International Criminal Court"
(A/C.6/59/L. 25 and Corr.1) and orally revised it by adding
a new footnote after the words "Relationship Agreement"
in the fourth preambular paragraph.
At the same meeting, the representative
of the United States of America made statement in explanation
of position before the Committee took action on the draft
resolution and the representative of Canada made statement
in explanation of position after the Committee took action
on the draft resolution.
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted
draft resolution A/C.6/59/L 25 and Corr.1, as orally revised
without a vote.
The Committee concluded its consideration
of agenda item 146.
|
|
|
Agenda
item 147
|
Report
of the Special Committee on the Charter of the 51勛圖
and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization
Background (Source: A/59/100)
The item entitled "Need to consider
suggestions regarding the review of the Charter of the United
Nations" was included in the agenda of the twenty-fourth
session of the General Assembly, in 1969, at the request
of Colombia (A/7659).
At its twenty-ninth session, the General Assembly decided
to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on the Charter of the United
Nations to consider any specific proposals that Governments
might make with a view to enhancing the ability of the United
Nations to achieve its purposes, as well as other suggestions
for the more effective functioning of the 51勛圖
that might not require amendments to the Charter (resolution
3349 (XXIX)).
Meanwhile, another item, entitled "Strengthening of
the role of the 51勛圖 with regard to the maintenance
and consolidation of international peace and security, the
development of cooperation among all nations and the promotion
of the rules of international law in relations between States",
was included in the agenda of the twenty-seventh session
of the General Assembly at the request of Romania (A/8792).
At its thirtieth session, the General Assembly decided to
reconvene the Ad Hoc Committee as the Special Committee
on the Charter of the 51勛圖 and on the Strengthening
of the Role of the Organization to examine suggestions and
proposals regarding the Charter and the strengthening of
the role of the 51勛圖 with regard to the maintenance
and consolidation of international peace and security, the
development of cooperation among all nations and the promotion
of the rules of international law (resolution 3499 (XXX)).
Since its thirtieth session, the General Assembly has reconvened
the Special Committee every year (resolutions 31/28, 32/45,
33/94, 34/147, 35/164, 36/123, 37/114, 38/141, 39/88, 40/78,
41/83, 42/157, 43/170, 44/37, 45/44, 46/58, 47/38, 48/36,
49/58, 50/52, 51/209, 52/161, 53/106, 54/106, 55/156, 56/86
and 57/24).
At its
session, the General Assembly decided that the Special Committee
should hold its next session from 29 March to 8 April 2004,
and requested it to submit a report on its work to the Assembly
at its fifty-ninth session (resolution 58/248). The Special
Committee met at 51勛圖 Headquarters from 29 March
to 8 April 2004.
At the same session, the General Assembly requested the
Special Committee, at its session in 2004, to continue to
consider on a priority basis the question of the implementation
of the provisions of the Charter related to assistance to
third States affected by the application of sanctions under
Chapter VII of the Charter; decided to consider within the
Sixth Committee or a working group of the Committee, at
the fifty-ninth session, further progress in the elaboration
of effective measures aimed at the implementation of the
provisions of the Charter related to assistance to third
States affected by sanctions; and requested the Secretary-General
to submit a report on the implementation of the resolution
to the Assembly at its fifty-ninth session (resolution 58/80).
Background documentation:
Report of the Special Committee on
the Charter of the 51勛圖 and on the Strengthening
of the Role of the Organization: Supplement No. 33
(A/58/33)
Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation
of the provisions of the Charter of the 51勛圖
related to assistance to third States affected by the
application of sanctions (A/58/346)
Report of the Secretary-General on the Repertory of
Practice of 51勛圖 Organs and the Repertoire of
the Practice of the Security Council (A/58/347)
Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative
and Budgetary Questions on the Repertory of Practice of
51勛圖 Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice
of the Security Council (A/58/537)
Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative
and Budgetary Questions (A/58/7/Add.13) (also relates
to item 121)
Summary records: A/C.6/58/SR.4, 5, 13, 14 and 23;
A/C.5/58/SR.28 and 30
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/58/517
Report of the Fifth Committee: A/58/647
Plenary meetings: A/58/PV.72 and 79
Resolutions: 58/80 and 58/248
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 147
at its 3rd
(,
,
,
,
,
),
4th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
6th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
24th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 7, 8, 14 October and on 8 and 17 November 2004.
The Chairman of the 2004 session of the
Special Committee on the Charter of the 51勛圖 and
on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization introduced
the report of the Special Committee (A/59/33).
Statements were made by the representatives
of India, the Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union,
the Candidate Countries Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, the
Countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and
potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro,
and the EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway,
members of the European Economic Area), the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China, Guatemala, Brazil
(on behalf of the Rio Group), Japan, the Russian Federation,
Egypt, Turkey , the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Belarus, Cameroon,
Kenya, Ukraine, the Republic of Korea, the Syrian Arab Republic,
Morocco, Nepal, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
the Sudan, Jordan, Algeria, Thailand and the United States
of America.
Concerning the Implementation of the Charter
provisions related to assistance to third States affected
by sanctions, several speakers reaffirmed the usefulness
of sanctions as a tool in the maintenance of international
peace and security. However, delegations reiterated their
concern regarding the implication of sanctions for third
States and the civilian population of targeted States. Several
delegations, while supporting a continued debate on the
topic, welcomed the recourse to targeted sanctions by the
Security Council, minimizing the negative effects of sanctions
while upholding their effectiveness. Several speakers stressed
that the Security Council should undertake an assessment
of the humanitarian implications of sanctions prior to their
imposition.
The need for timely and adequate assistance
to third States and civilian population affected by sanctions
was emphasized. Furthermore, it was also suggested that
efforts to mobilize the 51勛圖 system, international
financial institutions, regional organizations and Member
States to address the economic problems of affected third
States should be undertaken. In this regard, it was suggested
that a trust fund be established.
Several delegations emphasized the need
to establish a methodology for the imposition of sanctions
as well as for their evaluation in order to mitigate the
effects on third States and civilians. They underlined the
need for clearly defined and targeted sanctions, imposed
for a limited duration, subject to periodic review and removed
as soon as their intended purpose is achieved. Furthermore,
sanctions should be used as a last resort after all peaceful
means of settlement of dispute have been exhausted. It was
pointed out that a decision to impose sanctions should reflect
the collective will of the Organization, a process in which
the General Assembly should be involved.
Several speakers regretted the unilateral
use of sanctions and it was suggested that the Security
Council should declare such measures illegal. The opinion
was expressed that the General Assembly should be properly
informed of Council's decisions to impose sanctions and
of measures taken to mitigate their negative effect. Others
delegations advocated that the decision to impose sanctions
should be approved by the Assembly.
Support was also expressed for the establishment
of a Working Group of the Sixth Committee to further explore
the question of assistance to third States affected by the
application of sanctions.
Support was expressed for the Russian Federation's
proposal on basic conditions and standard criteria for the
introduction and implementation of sanctions and other coercive
measures. It was argued that the proposal constituted a
good basis for future discussions within the Special Committee.
While some delegations welcomed a continuous discussion
on the proposal in the Special Committee, other delegations
suggested that the topic could be better dealt with in other
fora of the 51勛圖. Some support was also expressed
for the proposal by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on strengthening
certain principles concerning the impact and application
of sanctions.
Some support was expressed for the proposal
on the legal basis for peace-keeping operations. A point
was made, however, that the Committee should focus only
on legal aspects of peace-keeping to complement the work
of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations on practical
issues.
Several speakers expressed support for
the revitalization and democratization of the General Assembly
and the Security Council, as contained in the proposals
of Cuba and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. It was stressed
that the proposals were important to the reform process
of the 51勛圖. It was further stated that such efforts
would result in the fostering of the rule of law and multilateralism,
and that a determined political will on the part of Member
States was needed for the adoption of the proposals on the
reform of the General Assembly and the Security Council.
One speaker suggested that the proposals included in the
report of the Charter Committee, in section III, A through
F, should be considered biannually instead of annually due
to the apparent lack of consensus for the adoption of the
proposals.
Some delegations expressed support for
the proposal by the Russian Federation and Belarus to request
an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice
as to the legal consequences of the resort to the use of
force by States without prior authorization by the Security
Council, except in the exercise of self-defence.
Support was reiterated for the continuation of work in the
area of the peaceful settlement of disputes. The need to
utilize effectively the existing means of peaceful settlement
was stressed. The important role of the International Court
of Justice was pointed out in this connection The importance
of the free choice of means of the settlement of disputes
based on the consent of the parties was reconfirmed. A suggestion
was made to focus the Committee's work on the issue of arbitration.
In addition, it was suggested to consider in the Committee's
framework the "Justice Rapid Response Initiative"
launched recently by Germany and some other States.
Regarding the future of the Trusteeship
Council, views were expressed against taking any decision
on this issue at the present stage since it should be dealt
with in the overall context of the reform of the United
Nations and would require amending the Charter of the United
Nations. Some support was expressed, however, for examining
the possibility of assigning to it new functions in the
light of new challenges facing the 51勛圖.
General appreciation was voiced for the
progress made in the elimination of the backlog of the Repertory
of Practice of 51勛圖 Organs and Repertoire of the
Practice of the Security Council, as well as for the availability
of the Repertory on the Internet. It was noted that there
was no provision in the 2004-2005 budget for the Repertory.
Concern was expressed for the lack of resources for the
continuation of the project and, in this regard, several
speakers called for the establishment of a voluntary trust
fund for the Repertory, similar to the fund for the Repertoire.
One speaker considered that, while the importance of the
Repertory could not be denied, that because of the need
for new financing in the framework of strict prioritization
and reallocation of resources, the continuation of the publication
of the Repertory did not necessarily meet that standard.
Comments also were made on the working
methods of the Special Committee and the identification
of new subjects. General support was expressed for the improvement
of the working methods of the Special Committee in order
to enhance its efficiency, and, in this regard, several
speakers expressed appreciation for the working paper submitted
by Japan. . It was emphasized that any proposal adopted
should not undermine the Committee's mandate to freely make
proposals in the future. A couple of speakers spoke about
the need not to limit the work of the Committee in the process
of enhancing its efficiency. One speaker stated that there
was no need to search for new subjects before the Committee
first dealt with those on its current agenda, while another
speaker was of the opinion that the consideration of new
subjects would contribute to the revitalization of the Special
Committee. The view also was expressed that the Committee
should focus on fewer topics, avoid duplication of work
and consider some topics biennially or triennially. Another
delegation was of the opinion that the Committee's agenda
should not be shortened and that equal consideration should
be given to all of its agenda items.
At the 6th meeting, the Secretary of the
Committee made a statement Repertory of Practice of United
Nations Organs and Repertoire of the Practice of the Security
Council at the request of delegations.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 24th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 8 November, the representative of Egypt introduced
a draft resolution entitled "Report of the Special
Committee on the Charter of the 51勛圖 and on the
Strengthening of the Role of the Organization" (A/C.6/59/L.17).
Also at the 24th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 8 November, the representative of Ukraine, on
behalf of Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Egypt,
the Russian Federation, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine, subsequently
joined by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, introduced
a draft resolution entitled "Implementation of the
provisions of the Charter of the 51勛圖 related
to assistance to third States affected by the application
of sanctions" (A/C.6/59/L.18).
At the 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 17 November, the Secretary of the Committee
made a statement regarding the programme budget implications
of the draft resolution.
At its 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 17 November, the Committee adopted draft resolutions
A/C.6/59/L.17 and A/C.6/59/L.18 without a vote.
The Committee thus concluded its consideration
of agenda item 147.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2005).
|
|
|
Agenda
item 148
|
Measures to eliminate
international terrorism
Background (Source: A/59/100)
This item was included in the agenda of
the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly, in 1972,
further to an initiative of the Secretary-General (A/8791
and Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1). At that session, the Assembly
decided to establish the Ad Hoc Committee on International
Terrorism, consisting of 35 members (resolution 3034 (XXVII))
.
The General Assembly continued its consideration of the
item biennially at its thirty-fourth to forty-eighth sessions,
and annually thereafter (resolutions 34/145, 36/109, 38/130,
40/61, 42/159, 44/29, 46/51, 49/60 and 50/53, and decision
48/411).
At its fifty-first session, the General Assembly established
an Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate an international convention
for the suppression of terrorist bombings and, subsequently,
an international convention for the suppression of acts
of nuclear terrorism, to supplement related existing international
instruments, and thereafter to address means of further
developing a comprehensive legal framework of conventions
dealing with international terrorism (resolution 51/210).
The General Assembly continued its consideration of the
item at its fifty-second to fifty-seventh sessions (resolutions
52/164, 52/165, 53/108, 54/110, 55/158, 56/88 and 57/27).
At its
session, the General Assembly, inter alia, welcomed the
progress attained in the elaboration of the draft comprehensive
convention on international terrorism; decided that the
Ad Hoc Committee should meet from 28 June to 2 July 2004
to continue the elaboration of a draft comprehensive convention
on international terrorism, with appropriate time allocated
to the continued consideration of outstanding issues relating
to the elaboration of a draft international convention for
the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, that it should
keep on its agenda the question of convening a high-level
conference under the auspices of the 51勛圖 to formulate
a joint organized response of the international community
to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and that
the work should continue, if necessary, during the fifty-ninth
session of the General Assembly, within the framework of
a working group of the Sixth Committee; and requested the
Ad Hoc Committee to report to the Assembly at its fifty-ninth
session on progress made in the implementation of its mandate
(resolution 58/81).
Background documentation:
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established
by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996
on its seventh session: Supplement No. 37 (A/58/37)
Report of the Secretary-General: A/58/116 and Add.1
Summary records: A/C.6/58/SR.6-9 and 20-22
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/58/518
Plenary meeting: A/58/PV.72
Resolution: A/58/81
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 148
at its 7th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
8th (,
,
,
,
,
),
9th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
10th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
19th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 18 to 20 October and 3 and 17 November 2004.
In addition, pursuant to paragraph 16 of General Assembly
resolution 58/81, the Committee, at its 1st
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 4 October, established a working group to continue
the elaboration of a draft comprehensive convention on international
terrorism, with appropriate time allocated to the continued
consideration of outstanding issues relating to the elaboration
of a draft international convention for the suppression
of acts of nuclear terrorism, and to keep on its agenda
the question of convening a high-level conference under
the auspices of the 51勛圖 to formulate a joint
organized response of the international community to terrorism
in all its forms and manifestations. At the same meeting,
the Committee re-elected Rohan Perera (Sri Lanka) as Chairman
of the Working Group, which held two plenary meetings, on
5 and 8 October.
At the 7th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and of the
Working Group on terrorism introduced the reports of the
two bodies (A/59/37 and A/C.6/59/L.10).
Statements were made by the representatives
of Brazil (also on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama,
Paraguay, and Uruguay, and subsequently in his national
capacity), the Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union,
the candidate countries Bulgaria, Turkey and Croatia, the
countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and
potential candidates the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and Serbia and Montenegro, and the EFTA countries Iceland
and Norway members of the European Economic Area), Viet
Nam (on behalf of ASEAN), India, the Republic of Korea,
Tajikistan, Turkey (on behalf of the OIC), Cameroon, Myanmar,
Kuwait, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Australia,
Switzerland, the Russian Federation, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Ecuador, the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya, Belarus, Qatar, the United States of America,
China, Iceland, Morocco, Bahrain, Monaco, Colombia, Israel,
Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Cuba, Afghanistan, Costa Rica, the
United Republic of Tanzania, Pakistan, Japan, Algeria, Uganda,
the Sudan, Peru, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso, Singapore, Guatemala,
Venezuela, Angola, Oman, Iraq, Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf
of CARIC0M), Sierra Leone, Jordan, New Zealand, Mongolia,
Syria, Kenya, Yemen, Maldives, Zambia, Mali, Egypt, Ukraine
(on behalf of the GUUAM Member Sates), Mexico, Senegal Saudi
Arabia, Nigeria, Fiji, Nepal, Ethiopia, Gabon, Lesotho,
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran (Islamic
Republic of) and Tunisia.
Delegations emphasized that the United
Nations should lead efforts aimed at combating terrorism,
and that in taking measures against terrorism, Charter principles,
international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee
law should be respected. Delegations acknowledged the important
role played by the Security Council, in particular through
the activities carried out by Counter-Terrorism-Committee,
as well as the significant role played by the General Assembly,
in particular by the activities undertaken by the Ad Hoc
Committee established by the General Assembly resolution
51/210. It was pointed out that the role played by the two
organs of the 51勛圖 were complimentary. It was
stressed that further delay in the adoption of two draft
conventions would undermine the authority of the General
Assembly and the 51勛圖 in combating terrorism.
A view was expressed that the legislative authority of the
General Assembly should not be relinquished to another organ
of the 51勛圖. Particular references were made to
the recent contributions of the Security Council and its
Sanctions and Counter-Terrorism Committees, established
pursuant to resolutions 1267 and 1373 respectively, in the
fight against international terrorism. Several speakers
highlighted the important elements of Security Council resolutions
1526, 1540 and 1566, as well as recent revitalization and
capacity building measures of the CTC.
Delegations highlighted various international
and national counter-terrorism activities and called for
the ratification and implementation of all 12 sectoral counter-
terrorism conventions by all States, and enhanced regional
cooperation. Some delegations indicated that the international
community should address the root causes of terrorism, such
as displacement, poverty, depravation, unemployment, etc.
The view was expressed that the inter-faith dialogue would
help better understanding among different cultures and religions
and could prevent the clash of civilizations. The initiative
of Saudi Arabia in hosting an international conference on
terrorism, in February 2005, was welcome by some delegations.
Support was expressed for the Costa Rican proposal on appointing
a high commissioner on terrorism. Support was also expressed
for the Tunisian proposal regarding the preparation of a
code of conduct on the fight against terrorism. The need
to eliminate the technological gap between developed and
developing countries in the area of combating terrorism
was also noted.
Speakers called for a redoubling of efforts
to finalize the draft comprehensive convention on international
terrorism. Some delegations emphasized that the draft comprehensive
convention would compliment the existing sectoral anti-terrorism
conventions. It was pointed out that the draft comprehensive
convention should include a definition of terrorism, which
would differentiate between terrorism and the right of peoples
to self-determination. A view was expressed that such a
distinction would prove untenable. Although divergent views
still existed with respect to articles 2, 2bis and 18, it
was emphasized that the differences were political in nature.
A view was also expressed that the early conclusion of the
draft comprehensive convention was required to forestall
the adoption of divergent definitions of terrorism by different
UN organs. Some delegations called for the adoption of the
convention at the current session of the Assembly. The importance
of arriving at a consensus definition of terrorism was stressed
in light of the adoption of resolution 1566 by the Security
Council.
Delegations called for the speedy finalization
of the draft international convention for the suppression
of acts of nuclear terrorism. Some delegations called for
its adoption at the current session of the Assembly.
Some delegations supported the convening
of an international conference on international terrorism
following the adoption of the draft comprehensive convention
on international terrorism. A suggestion was made to the
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee to establish a group of
friends of the Chairman, to prepare a working paper on this
question.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 17 November, the representative of Canada, on
behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled
"Measures to eliminate international terrorism"
(A/C.6/59/L.19).
At the same meeting the Secretary of the
Committee made a statement regarding the programme budget
implications of the draft resolution.
Also at the same meeting, the Committee
adopted draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.19 without a vote. After
the adoption of the draft resolution, the representatives
of Tunisia and Venezuela made statements in explanation
of position.
The Committee thus concluded its consideration
of agenda item 148.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2005)
|
|
|
Agenda
item 149
|
Scope of legal protection
under the Convention on Safety of 51勛圖 and Associated
Personnel
Background (Source: A/59/100)
This item was included in the agenda of
the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly, in 2001,
pursuant to paragraph 20 of Assembly resolution 55/175.
At that session, the Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee
to consider the recommendations made by the Secretary-General
in his report (A/55/637) on measures to strengthen and enhance
the protective legal regime for 51勛圖 and associated
personnel (resolution 56/89). The Assembly continued its
consideration of the item at its fifty-seventh session (resolution
57/28).
At its
session, the General Assembly decided that the Ad Hoc Committee
on the Scope of Legal Protection under the Convention on
the Safety of 51勛圖 and Associated Personnel should
reconvene from 12 to 16 April 2004, with a mandate to expand
the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the
Safety of 51勛圖 and Associated Personnel, including,
inter alia, by means of a legal instrument, and that the
work should continue during the fifty-ninth session of the
General Assembly within the framework of a working group
of the Sixth Committee; requested the Committee to submit
a report on its work to the Assembly at its fifty-ninth
session; urged States to take all necessary measures, in
accordance with their international obligations, to prevent
crimes against 51勛圖 and associated personnel from
occurring, and to ensure that such crimes did not go unpunished
and that the perpetrators of such crimes were brought to
justice; affirmed the obligation of all States to comply
fully with their obligations under the relevant rules and
principles of international law in relation to the safety
and security of 51勛圖 and associated personnel;
recommended that the Secretary-General continue to seek
the inclusion of, and that host countries include, key provisions
of the Convention in future as well as, if necessary, in
existing status-of-forces, status-of-mission and host country
agreements; recommended also that the Secretary-General
advise the Security Council or the General Assembly, as
appropriate, where in his assessment circumstances would
support a declaration of exceptional risk for the purposes
of article 1 (c) (ii) of the Convention; noted that the
Secretary-General had prepared a standardized provision
for incorporation into the agreements concluded between
the 51勛圖 and humanitarian non-governmental organizations
or agencies for the purposes of clarifying the application
of the Convention to persons deployed by those organizations
or agencies, and requested him to make available to Member
States the names of organizations or agencies that had concluded
such agreements; and also requested the Secretary-General
to report to the Assembly at its fifty-ninth session on
the measures taken to implement the resolution (resolution
58/82).
Background documentation:
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on
the Scope of Legal Protection under the Convention on
the Safety of 51勛圖 and Associated Personnel:
Supplement No. 52 (A/58/52)
Report of the Secretary-General: A/58/187
Summary records: A/C.6/58/SR.13, 20 and 21
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/58/519
Plenary meeting: A/58/PV.72
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Sixth Committee considered the item
at its 10th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
13th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 20 and 25 October and 17 November 2004.
At the 10th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting of the Sixth Committee, on 20 October 2004, the
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and of the Working Group
introduced the report of the Ad Hoc Committee and the report
of the Working Group.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Switzerland, the Netherlands (on behalf of the European
Union, the Candidate countries Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania,
the countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process
and potential Candidate countries Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the Former Yugoslave Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro,
and the EFTA countries Iceland and Liechtenstein, members
of the European Economic Area), Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya, Brazil (on behalf of Rio Group), Japan,
Jordan, New Zealand, Cuba, Sri Lanka, United States, China,
Republic of Korea, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ukraine, Kenya, Canada,
Australia, Nepal and Sierra Leone.
Delegations expressed their concern at
the increasing number of attacks on 51勛圖 and associated
personnel and stressed the importance of universal application
and full implementation of the Convention. Efforts of the
Secretary-General to incorporate relevant provisions of
the Convention into status-of-forces and status-of-mission
agreements were welcomed.
Several speakers expressed their continued
support for the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Working
Group and, in this regard, called for the urgent conclusion
of a Protocol to expand the scope of the Convention. The
elimination of the requirement of a declaration of exceptional
risk was emphasized. It was noted that delegations still
remained divided on the scope of operations to be covered
by an expansion of the Convention but that the text proposed
in the Working Group by the Chairman constituted a good
basis for further discussion. The inclusion of key provisions
of 1994 Convention in recently concluded SOFA's and SOMAS
was noted. As regards the definition of UN operations, some
delegation sought elimination of the element of risk in
the definition, others maintained that the element of risk
needed to be retained in the definition of 51勛圖
operations.
The need to delineate the scope of the
international humanitarian law and the scope of the Convention
was also emphasized.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 26th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 17 November 2004, the representative of New
Zealand, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Scope
of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of
51勛圖 and Associated Personnel" (A/C.6/59/L.20).
At the same meeting, the Secretary of the
Committee made a statement regarding the administrative
and financial implications of the draft resolution.
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted
draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.20, without a vote.
The Committee thus concluded its discussion
of agenda item 149.
This
agenda item was subsequently considered at the
session (2005)
|
|
|
Agenda
item 150
|
International convention
against the reproductive cloning of human beings
Background (Source: A/59/100)
This item was included in the agenda of
the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly, in 2001,
as a supplementary item, at the request of France and Germany
(A/56/192).
At that session, the General Assembly established an Ad
Hoc Committee for the purpose of considering the elaboration
of an international convention against the reproductive
cloning of human beings; decided that the Ad Hoc Committee
would meet from 25 February to 1 March 2002, and recommended
that the work continue during the fifty-seventh session
of the Assembly from 23 to 27 September 2002, within the
framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee; and
requested the Ad Hoc Committee to report on its work to
the Assembly at its fifty-seventh session (resolution 56/93).
At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly welcomed
the reports of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International
Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings
(A/57/51) and of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee
established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 56/93
of 12 December 2001 (A/C.6/57/L.4); and decided that a working
group of the Sixth Committee should be convened during the
fifty-eighth session of the Assembly from 29 September to
3 October 2003 in order to continue the work undertaken
during the fifty-seventh session (decision 57/512).
At its
session, the General Assembly decided to include the item
in the provisional agenda of its fifty-ninth session (decision
58/523).
Background documentation:
Report of the Working Group established
pursuant to General Assembly decision 57/512 of 19 November
2002 (A/C.6/58/L.9)
Summary records: A/C.6/58/SR.10-12, 19 and 23
Report of the Sixth Committee: A/58/520
Plenary meeting: A/58/PV.72
Decision: 58/523
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Sixth Committee considered the item
at its 11th
(,
,
,
,
,
),
12th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 27th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 21 and 22 October and on 19 November 2004.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Costa Rica, Belgium, Indonesia, Korea (Rep. of), Japan,
Turkey (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference),
Namibia, Finland, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Brazil,
Singapore, France, India, Cuba, New Zealand, Panama, China,
Botswana (on behalf of the Southern African Development
Community as well as the candidate country of Madagascar),
Greece, South Africa, Zimbabwe Slovakia, Ghana, Jordan,
Cyprus, Nigeria, Kenya, Honduras, Fiji, Italy, Norway, Sudan,
Malaysia, Sweden, Thailand, Sierra Leone, Germany, Ethiopia,
Philippines, Uganda, United States of America, El Salvador,
Viet Nam, the Gambia, Timor Leste, Mexico, Senegal, Paraguay
and Nicaragua. Statements were also made by the Permanent
Observer of the Holy See, the Permanent Observer of the
Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and by the representative
of UNESCO.
All speakers continued to favour a ban
on the cloning of human beings for reproductive purposes.
However, diverging views remain on the scope of the proposed
convention. The first set of views are reflected in draft
resolution A/C.6/59/L.2, under which the convention would
seek to impose a global ban on the cloning of human embryos
regardless of the purpose, i.e. including a ban on "therapeutic"
cloning based on embryonic stem-cell research. This draft
resolution was, inter alia, characterized as being critical
for the protection of the dignity of the human embryo, as
well as for the prevention of the potential exploitation
of millions of women whose eggs would be harvested for purposes
of undertaking research. The view was expressed that only
a comprehensive legal framework prohibiting all types of
human cloning would adequately protect the dignity of human
embryos. It was maintained that those supporting a partial
ban were making an untenable distinction between reproductive
and so-called "therapeutic" cloning, which were
essentially the same, with the only difference being the
end goal. A ban differentiating between human reproductive
cloning and "experimental" cloning would, in effect,
authorize the creation of a human embryo for the purpose
of destroying it, thereby instrumentalizing human life.
Furthermore, by opening the door to some, albeit limited,
cloning of human embryos, even if strictly regulated, scientists
would be able to perfect their techniques thereby increasing
the possibility of a human clone being born. Reference was
also made to the prospect of the exploitation of women,
particularly in developing countries, by "scientific
entrepreneurs" seeking to harvest millions of human
eggs in order to undertake such research. It was also disputed
that supporting a total ban on human cloning was inconsistent
with the freedom of scientific research and that it would
serve to impose obstacles to finding cures to major diseases.
Instead, reference was made to the apparent success of adult
stem cell research in providing cures, and it was recalled
that draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.2, in its operative paragraph
5, called on States and other entities to instead direct
the funds they would have used for embryonic stem cell research
towards combating other pressing global issues like famine,
desertification, infant mortality and diseases. In response
to the call by proponents of the opposing draft resolution
for respect for the diversity of views among nations and
societies, the analogy was drawn to the debate on cultural
relativism versus the universality of human rights, where
the 51勛圖 had decided to adopt a common universal
standard, despite divergences in practices at the national
level.
A second group of member Governments support
a different proposal for a draft resolution, contained in
document A/C.6/59/L.8, which would, like the proposal in
A/C.6/59/L.2, call for an international ban on human reproductive
cloning, but, unlike the proposal in A/C.6/59/L.2, would
not ban cloning for "therapeutic" purposes, but
would instead give States three options: (1) to either ban
such activities, (2) to impose a moratorium on them, or
(3) to strictly regulate such research through national
legislation. For its supporters, such approach properly
took into account the cultural, ethical and religious differences
within different countries and regions of the world, and
that the choice is between imposing one set of views on
all States (including those which may not share those views),
or taking a more culturally diverse approach. It was maintained
that it was exactly because there existed such fundamental
differences of opinion on human embryonic research that
the proposal in document A/C.6/59/L.8 provided the most
promising basis for consensus. Reference was also made to
the actions already undertaken at the national level by
several countries to either ban or strictly regulate therapeutic
cloning, as proof that the approach espoused in draft resolution
A/C.6/59/L.8 was feasible.
Many speakers expressed concern about the
possibility of the outcome of the Committee's deliberations
being determined through a divisive vote. Reference was
made to the importance of developing international norms
in this area based on a global consensus, as has been the
tradition of the Sixth Committee. Some speakers cautioned
against an "all or nothing" approach and referred
to the importance of moving forward on the basis of consensus.
Indeed, it should be noted that some supporters of the "comprehensive"
ban expressly opposed deciding the matter by means of a
vote. Some additional suggestions were made, including reconvening
the Ad Hoc Committee to be briefed by a group of experts
drawn from different disciplines, holding an international
scientific conference to discuss the potential benefits
of embryonic stem-cell research, and requesting the Secretariat
to produce a compilation of national laws on the topic.
Various speakers also reported on recent
developments that have taken place in their countries, or
respective regions, in relation to the issue of the cloning
of human beings. It was noted that the Southern African
Development Community had recently adopted a common position
calling for a global ban on cloning for reproductive purposes,
while allowing more time to receive more information on
cloning for therapeutic research.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 11th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 21 October, the representative of Costa Rica,
introduced a draft resolution entitled "International
convention against human cloning" (A/C.6/59/L.2).
Also at the 11th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 21 October, the representative of Belgium introduced
a draft resolution entitled "International convention
against the reproductive cloning of human beings" (A/C.6/59/L.8).
At the 27th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 19 November, the representative of Italy introduced
a draft resolution entitled "International convention
against the reproductive cloning of human beings" that
it had proposed (A/C.6/59/L.26).
Also at the 27th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 19 November, the Chairman announced that, on
the basis of informal consultations with interested delegations,
it was being proposed that the Sixth Committee establish
a Working Group to finalize the text of a 51勛圖
declaration on human cloning, on the basis of draft resolution
(A/C.6/59/L.26) and to report to the Sixth Committee during
the current session. The Working Group shall meet on 14,
15 and 18 February 2005. The Sixth Committee will meet in
the afternoon of 18 February to consider and take action
on the report of the Working Group. The Working Group shall
be open to all States Members of the 51勛圖 or members
of specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy
Agency. The Chairman of the Sixth Committee shall be chairman
of the Working Group and members of the Bureau of the Sixth
Committee shall serve as Friends of the Chairman.
At the same meeting, the Secretary of the
Committee made a statement regarding the administrative
and financial implications of the proposal of the Chairman
(A/C.6/59/SR.27).
At the same meeting, on the basis of the proposal of the
Chairman, the Committee adopted a decision to establish
a working group without a vote.
|
|
|
Agenda
item 151
|
Observer
Status for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the General
Assembly
Background (Source: A/59/100/ADD.1)
This item was included on the agenda at
the request of People's Republic of China.
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 157
at its 2nd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 3rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, held on 5 and 7 October 2004, respectively.
Statements were made by the representatives
of China, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan.
Support was expressed for the granting
of observer status to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
in the General Assembly
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 2nd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the delegation of China introduced the item and
the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/59/L.3.
At the 3rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without
a vote.
|
|
|
Agenda
item 152
|
Observer status for
the Southern African Development Community in the General
Assembly
Background
This item was included on the agenda at
the request of the United Republic of Tanzania, on behalf
of the following States members of the Southern African
Development Community (SADC): Angola, Botswana, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique,
Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, the United
Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 157
at its 2nd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 3rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, held on 5 and 7 October 2004, respectively.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Botswana and Zimbabwe.
Support was expressed for the granting
of observer status to the Southern African Development Community
in the General Assembly.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 2nd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the delegation of Botswana introduced the item
and the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/59/L.5.
At the 3rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without
a vote. Venezuela made a statement in explanation of a position
after taking action on the draft resolution.
|
|
|
Agenda
item 157
|
Observer status for
the Collective Security Treaty Organization in the General
Assembly
Background (Source: A/59/200)
This item was included on the agenda at
the request of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
the Russian Federation and Tajikistan.
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 157
at its 2nd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 3rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, held on 5 and 7 October 2004, respectively.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation.
Support was expressed for the granting
of observer status to the Collective Security Treaty Organization
in the General Assembly.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 2nd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the delegation of Kazakhstan introduced the item
and the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/59/L.4.
At the 3rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without
a vote.
|
|
|
Agenda
item 159
|
Observer status for
the Economic Community of West African States in the General
Assembly
Background
This item was included on the agenda at
the request of Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, the Gambia, Ghana,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal,
Sierra Leone and Togo.
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Committee considered agenda item 157
at its 2nd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 3rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, held on 5 and 7 October 2004, respectively.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Ghana and Nigeria.
Support was expressed for the granting
of observer status to the Economic Community of West African
States in the General Assembly.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 2nd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the delegation of Ghana introduced the item and
the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/59/L.6
and announced that Benin, Côte d'Ivoire and the United
Kingdom had joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.
At the 3rd
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without
a vote.
|
|
|
Agenda
item 160
|
Observer status for
the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States in the General
Assembly
Background
This item was included on the agenda at
the request of Saint Lucia
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Sixth Committee considered the item
at its 13th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 16th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 25 and 29 October 2004.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Saint Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
The delegation of Saint Lucia introduced
the item and the draft resolution contained in document
A/C.6/59/L.7 and announced that Guyana had joined as sponsor
of the draft resolution. The delegation of Trinidad and
Tobago expressed its support for the granting of observer
status to the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States in
the General Assembly.
At the 13th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, delegation of Saint Lucia introduced the draft
resolution contained in document A/C.6/59/L.7.
At the 16th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 29 October 2004, the Committee adopted draft
resolution A/C.6/59/L.7 without a vote.
The Committee concluded its consideration
of agenda item 160.
|
|
|
Agenda
item 162
|
Observer status for
the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in
the General Assembly
Background
This item was included on the agenda at
the request of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal,
Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
Work undertaken at the Fifty-ninth session:
The Sixth Committee considered the item
at its 19th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
and 21st
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meetings, on 3 and 5 November 2004.
Statements were made by the representatives
of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The delegation of Bangladesh
expressed its support for the granting of observer status
to the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
in the General Assembly.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 19th
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 3 November, the representative of Pakistan,
on behalf of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka, introduced a draft resolution entitled
"Observer status for the South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation in the General Assembly" (A/C.6/59/L.21).
At its 21st
(,
,
,
,
,
)
meeting, on 5 November, the Committee adopted draft resolution
A/C.6/59/L.21 without a vote.
The Committee thus concluded its consideration
of agenda item 162.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Created and maintained by:
Codification Division
Office of Legal Affairs
51勛圖
+1 (212) 963-5332
Copyright (c) 2004
51勛圖
![](/law/cod/sixth/59/topofpag.gif)
|
|
|
|
![](/law/cod/sixth/59/gaimages/rightborder.gif) |
![](/law/cod/sixth/59/gaimages/black.gif) |
|