(As a result of the liquidity crisis affecting the United Nations, the Department of Press Releases has to change the format of meeting coverage.)
The Sixth Committee, responsible for legal issues, today concluded the consideration of the relationship annual meeting of the International Law Commission (ILC), which began on October 21, with the conclusion of the debate on the third group of chapters of the report: chapter VI (Prevention and suppression of piracy and armed robbery at sea), VIII (Non-Legally Binding International Agreements) and IX (State Succession in Matters of State Obligation).
Early in the morning, the commission took without a vote draft resolution regarding the granting of observer status in the General Assembly to the International Coffee Group, presented by Brazil.
The delegations focused their views on the prevention and suppression of piracy and armed robbery at sea and on non-legally binding international agreements, suggesting several ways to improve with a view to achieving greater legal certainty.
The delegations first welcomed the fact that the CDI had adopted non-legally binding international agreements when the first report was drafted. “This subject is extremely important for States because we see, in our daily practice, the development of various instruments whose legal scope is not easily defined,” said France, in the union of other delegations.
The value of these agreements lies in their efficiency and ability to deal quickly with emerging issues, as seen by the various regional and international frameworks that are included, Sierra Leone explained. “One example is the 2015 Paris Agreement which, although legally binding in some ways, provides non-legally binding commitments that are essential to promoting a comprehensive response to the climate crisis. »
Many delegations rejected the word “agreement”, which was a source of confusion for the Czech Republic. The United States noted that states usually use the word “agreement” to indicate that they intend to establish rights and obligations that are legally binding. “Therefore keeping this term harms the ability of States to distinguish between what is binding and what is not,” said the United States, seeing it as a source of legal uncertainty.
This term also suggests that among all “non-binding legal communications between States” there would be a special category of agreements, continuing in this country. “However, according to the practice of the State, such a distinction is not clear. » There are no known criteria for the implementation of which “non-legally binding instruments or exchanges” would be established as an agreement, the United States ruled at the end of its presentation, hoping that the word “arrangement” or “instrument” instead. of “agreement”.
India invited the ILC to distinguish between these three terms, used “interchangeably” by States, while Switzerland expressed its preference for the term “international instrument not legally binding”. France noted that the term “instrument” has the advantage of emphasizing that we are in a record that is different from international treaties or agreements. The word “instrument” is broad enough to include the various legal aspects related to the work of the Commission.
For its part, Czechia noted that the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law of the Council of Europe chose to replace “agreement” with “instrument”. » Turkey, Thailand and India also rejected this term, and Chile believed that it should be reserved for binding instruments. On the other hand, the Republic of Korea wanted to keep the term “agreement” because “instrument” covers more types of contracts and agreements.
Micronesia drew the Commission’s attention to recent statements by the Pacific Islands Forum and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) on sea level rise, statehood and human protection. As groups of states, he noted, the Forum and the Federation have adopted declarations which, although not treaties, express the agreements of each group to commit to using specific methods to resolve international law issues related to sea level rise.
The final form of the CDI’s work was also discussed extensively. If Australia and Chile wanted the development of draft guidelines, Switzerland expressed itself in favor of draft decisions, “to avoid any prescriptive nature, which would restrict the freedom of States and would significantly slow down the use of these instruments which has become necessary. “.
“Guidelines on this subject could create problems for States,” said Japan. Sierra Leone, Thailand and the United Kingdom also supported draft decisions. Switzerland, like other countries, has also indicated that they will respond to the call made by the Commission to receive from States, by 31 December 2024 at the latest, all information related to the practice in this field.
There were two main elements at the heart of the debate on the ILC’s work on preventing piracy and armed robbery at sea. at sea”. Australia recalled that it is understood that piracy under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea occurs on the high seas while armed robbery at sea takes place in waters under state jurisdiction.
If piracy falls under universal jurisdiction, this is not the case for this robbery which is within the jurisdiction of the State concerned, explained the United States, saying that armed robbery at sea does not reflect its -all elements of piracy. “The duty to cooperate in suppressing piracy under Article 100 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is different from cooperation for theft, which is not mandatory. » Cooperation with other States is then defined on a case-by-case basis, explained the Islamic Republic of Iran.
As a reminder, this article 100, which was at the heart of the discussions, provides that « all States shall co-operate to the maximum extent possible to suppress piracy on the high seas or in any other place not under the jurisdiction of any State. ” In this light, Indonesia and the United Kingdom wanted separate articles or sections for piracy and armed robbery. The United Kingdom called to combat “any idea that the legal principles governing the fight against piracy apply to armed robbery”.
Many delegations requested that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea be the starting point for analyzing the subject. Codification work on this subject necessarily involves the consolidation of existing standards, announced in France, supported by India. For this country, if the work of the CDI is useful, it must not undermine the existing legal framework, that is the Convention. The results of the CDI must not contradict this Convention, said the Russian Federation.
The same goes for Indonesia, which emphasized the need for resolutions from the General Assembly and the Security Council, even if they may reflect the practice of the State, without undermining the existing standards. In this sense, France invited the CDI to examine carefully the question of the relationship between the resolutions of the Council adopted on the basis of Chapter VII of the Convention and this Convention, to avoid weakening one or the other.
“We must be careful not to interpret the intentions of the Council as lowering the standards established in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” said the French representative. He said he was waiting for the next report on the subject to decide on the final form of this work, while Iran believed it was premature to draft guidelines on the subject. this. On the other hand, Colombia came out for such guidelines.
A note of disagreement came from Türkiye which invited the CDI to study other instruments outside the Convention, which is not the only legal framework to regulate activities related to the seas and oceans. “We do not agree with the position according to which this Convention has a universal and unified character,” said this delegation, referring to the country’s “famous” position on the this subject. Eritrea, for its part, pointed out that that Convention reflects customary international law and that States that are not parties must respect it.
The Sixth Committee will begin its work on Friday 1Yes November, at 10 am, with the review of the United Nations Program of Assistance for the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Understanding of International Law.
NEW – Follow the coverage of the meeting live on our LYRICS
2024-10-31 02:05:00
#Sixth #Committee #concludes #discussion #International #Law #Commissions #annual #report #recommendations #improvements #work
