|
|
|
Summaries
of the work of the
Sixth Committee (Informal summary prepared by the Secretariat for reference purposes only) |
|
| |
Dowload
free PDF format viewer
|
|
Agenda item 159
|
United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law Background (Source: A/56/100) The United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching,
Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law was established
by the General Assembly at its twentieth session, in 1965 (resolution
2099 (XX)). Its continuation was subsequently authorized by the Assembly
at its annual sessions until its twenty-sixth session, and thereafter
biennially (resolutions 2204 (XXI), 2313 (XXII), 2464 (XXIII), 2550 (XXIV),
2698 (XXV), 2838 (XXVI), 3106 (XXVIII), 3502 (XXX), 32/146, 34/144, 36/108,
38/129, 40/66, 42/148, 44/28, 46/50, 48/29, 50/43, 52/152 and 54/102). Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: The speakers stressed the continued importance of the
programme, particularly for developing countries, and which already was
making a valuable contribution to the dissemination of information on
international law. The view was expressed that there existed a critical
need to find the resources to bring information on International law to
the public at large, particularly to the world's youth. The importance
of the fellowship programmes and the United Nations Audiovisual Library
in International Law under the Programme of Assistance also was highlighted. Action taken by the Sixth Committee: See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/586) This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-eighth
session (2003).
|
|
Agenda item 160
|
Convention
on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property
Background (Source: A/56/100) At its forty-sixth session, in 1991, the General Assembly,
noting that the International Law Commission had completed the second
reading of the draft articles on jurisdictional immunities of States and
their property and recognizing the desirability of the conclusion of a
convention on the subject, 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). Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Action taken by the Sixth Committee: See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/587) and Corr.1. This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh session (2002)
|
|
Agenda item 161
|
Report
of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work
of its thirty-fourth session
Background (Source: A/56/100) The United Nations 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 session, the Assembly increased the membership
of the Commission from 29 to 36 (resolution 3108 (XXVIII)). (For the membership
of the Commission, see A/55/17, para. 4.) Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: The speakers welcomed the report and stressed the role of UNCITRAL as the core legal body in international trade law. They congratulated the Commission for the successful completion of its work on the Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade and the Model Law on Electronic Signatures. A majority called for the adoption of the Convention by the General Assembly at the current session and supported inviting States to adopt their legislation on the basis of the Model Law. Delegates also welcomed and expressed appreciation for the continuation of the Commission's work in the areas of arbitration, insolvency law, electronic commerce, transport law, security interests and privately financed infrastructure projects. Gratitude was also expressed for the training and technical assistance provided by the Commission and speakers called for continuing efforts in this regard, with due account of equitable distribution among States of the benefits from such Commission's activities. Support was expressed for the continued operation of the system for the collection and dissemination of case law on UNCITRAL texts (CLOUT). Delegates also called for increased coordination of the Commission's work with other bodies so as to avoid duplication. As to the proposed enlargement of the Commission, while support was voiced for the proposal, divergent views were expressed as to the factors to be considered in the distribution of new seats and the appropriate number of members in the enlarged Commission. It was stressed that any enlargement should guarantee the Commission's efficiency and balance in representation of all legal and economic regimes and systems. The principle of equitable geographic distribution was generally felt to be appropriate in this context. The view was also expressed, however, that preference should be given to developing countries. Given the unprecedented increase in the workload of the Commission, the speakers highlighted the importance of providing the Secretariat of the Commission with adequate financial and human resources to perform its tasks. They also welcomed the Commission's efforts to rationalize its working methods and called for careful consideration of the implications of any alterations in this regard, especially implications on the participation of developing countries in the Commission's work. The need to provide assistance to developing countries to attend the Commission's meetings was also stressed. The Chairman of UNCITRAL made a concluding statement. Action taken by the Sixth Committee: See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/588) This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh session (2002)
|
|
Agenda item 162
|
Report
of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session
Background (Source: A/56/100) 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)). Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: All speakers welcomed the conclusion of the Commission's work on the topic of State responsibility resulting in the adoption of the draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, after some 48 years of work. The completion of the draft articles were described as being a great achievement which was likely to be very influential since they deal with the fundamental structure of international law, and by extension, of international relations as a whole. It was generally felt that the draft articles were comprehensive and well-balanced, and they were characterized as a good compromise between the “bilateralist” and “communitarian” approaches to international law. Favourable mention was also made of the commentaries to the draft articles. Specific reference was made to various improvements in the text, over that which had been provisionally adopted in 2000. For example, support was expressed for the basic distinction between the injured State and States with a legal interest, which was described as being a major conceptual advance, and for the clarification of the concept of “injury”, which is to be viewed as being broader than “damage”. At the same time, some speakers made further drafting suggestions, including with regard to the provisions relating to the responsibility of States in connection with the acts of other States (Part One, chp.IV) , e.g. in the context of direction and control or coercion. Support was expressed for the Commission's decision to delete any reference to “State crimes” in the draft articles, and its replacement with the concept of “serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms”, was considered by many to be an acceptable compromise. The inclusion of the sanction of non-recognition and non-assistance (in article 41) was welcomed by some speakers. Support was also expressed for the Commission's decision to delete any reference to punitive damages in the draft articles. However, some dissatisfaction was also expressed with the distinction between serious breaches of norms of a peremptory character (jus cogens) and breaches of obligations owed to the international community as a whole (erga omnes obligations). For some speakers, the difference between the two was not immediately clear, and could open the door to disputes in the future. For example, it was noted that the draft articles do not make it clear who would judge whether an internationally wrongful act constituted a “serious breach”. Concerns were expressed about the vagueness of the concept of “obligations owed to the international community as a whole”. Doubts were also expressed as to the implicit distinction between “serious” and other, presumably trivial, breaches of peremptory norms. It was also queried whether such breaches give rise to legal consequences that are special or different from those arising out of ordinary breaches. Furthermore, it was cautioned that the explicit reference to “peremptory norms” could lead to unintended results. The view was also expressed that the right to self-determination, which was characterized as a peremptory norm, was essentially that of a people to seek independence from colonial rule, and that no right to secession was thus authorized in the post-colonial era. The view was expressed that the legal regime on countermeasures proposed in the draft articles struck the right balance, and it was observed that while safeguards against abuse where necessary, it was equally important not to have an overly restrictive system of countermeasures. It was also noted that the difficulty lay in striking the right balance between allowing injured States the possibility of defending their rights, while at the same time preventing abuse. Others expressed concerns regarding the “unilateral” determination of the legitimacy of countermeasures, with some stating a preference for some of the provisions on countermeasures in the 2000 text. Disappointment was expressed at the exclusion of measures of economic constraint from the category of impermissible countermeasures. It was also noted that the taking of countermeasures was not a right, but an activity barely tolerated in the international system. In that vein, concerned was voiced that their inclusion tended to legitimize their use. A clarification was also requested as to the interaction between the taking of individual countermeasures by the injured State and the taking of action by the Security Council under the United Nations Charter. A preference was expressed for the inclusion of specific provisions on dispute settlement, including a provision based on article 33 of the UN Charter. Others supported the decision to exclude provisions on dispute settlement and viewed the eventual inclusion of such provisions as impracticable since it would be tantamount to the adoption of a generalized compulsory system of settlement of disputes. It was also noted that States would still have at their disposal existing mechanisms for settlement of disputes. Most speakers also commended the Commission for its decision to replace article 54, which originally provided for “collective countermeasures”, with a without prejudice clause. It was noted that such deletion made it possible for the draft articles to be acceptable to all. At the same time, concern was expressed about the broad scope of the provision. It was also noted that the new provision excluded even the minimal safeguards found in the previous version. As to the future form of the draft articles, a preference was expressed for the Commission's recommendation that the draft articles be annexed to a resolution in which the Assembly would take note of them, and that the possibility of negotiating a convention be considered at a later stage. At the same time, it was noted that, while not strictly binding, such a General Assembly resolution would nonetheless have a normative value. Support was also expressed for establishing an open-ended Working Group to examine the draft articles. Still others called for the convening of an international conference to examine the draft articles with a view to their adoption as an international convention. In response, some delegations cautioned against being too hasty and risking unraveling the gains of nearly fifty years work by upsetting the delicate balance of the text. It was further suggested that action on the draft articles not be taken in 2001, as delegations would need some time to study the draft articles and their commentaries. A preference was also expressed for their eventual adoption in the form of a Declaration. As regards the topic on International Liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities), support was voiced for the draft articles adopted by the Commission, and several speakers welcomed the elaboration of flexible principles and mechanisms on the topic of prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities. Some stated that the draft articles filled an important lacuna in the regulation of lawful activities which have transboundary effects, and would serve as a practical guide for the elaboration of international legal instruments dealing with specific topics of environmental protection or at the bilateral and regional levels. For example, some speakers emphasized the principle contained therein concerning the need to balance the conflicting interests of States through dispute management. Others pointed to the provisions on prevention and preventive measures, as well as the requirements of due diligence and degree of risk as key concepts in the field At the same time, concerns were expressed that the draft articles did not cover areas beyond national jurisdiction. The view was also expressed that it was important to recognize that transboundary harm could take the form of economic loss resulting from the perceptions of the potential physical consequences of a particular activity, and that the draft articles should deal with medium risk situations where preventive action may be justified. Numerous suggestions were made for improving the text of the draft articles. Support existed for the recommendation of the Commission that a convention be elaborated on the basis of the draft articles, and some speakers spoke in favour of the establishment of a Working Group to examine the draft articles more closely and, for example, to clarify the notion of “transboundary harm”. It was also suggested that each State should take a few years to study the articles prior to negotiating a convention. In the interim, it was proposed that the draft articles could be taken note of by the Assembly and annexed to the respective resolution. Others expressed a preference for continuing the discussion of the draft rules so as to ensure that all relevant interests are adequately taken into account. A preference was also expressed for negotiating binding agreements on the topic within a regional or topical basis, rather than at the global level, as recommended by the Commission. Still others preferred to wait for the conclusion of the Commission's work on the liability aspect of the topic, prior to embarking on the elaboration of a convention, so that, upon completion of the second phase, a convention combining both aspects of prevention and liability could be elaborated. In terms of a further view, liability could relate to various fields of international law and, as such, each field might need specific consideration in terms of establishing a liability regime; according to this view, the Commission should take a few years to study issues regarding international liability for those activities involving a risk of causing transboundary harm in order to determine whether codification was feasible. It was suggested that the Commission first survey the various treaties dealing with liability questions, as well as ongoing projects in other fora, in order to ascertain the respective failures/successes of such instruments and to determine whether there was work of genuine value that the ILC might undertake, including elaborating its own general principles concerning State liability. With regard to the topic Reservations to treaties, support was expressed for the draft guidelines adopted at the Commission's fifty-third session. The view was expressed that the Vienna Conventions established a satisfactory treaty regime, balancing universality and respect for the object and purpose of the treaty. In that regard, it was maintained that human rights treaties should not be regarded as belonging to a separate regime. It was noted that the guidelines would fill the lacunae and clarify the ambiguities of the Vienna Conventions. In terms of a further view, reservations may impair the integrity and unity of the treaty especially in the field of human rights. Support was expressed for the guideline on late formulation of a reservation as reflecting current practice. In order to avoid confusion, objection to such a procedure could be termed: "rejection" or "refusal". It was suggested that a procedure for late reservations should be developed and that the absence of objections to such reservations should not necessarily be interpreted as tacit consent. At the same time, it was felt that the practice of late reservations was questionable. Concerns were expressed that the draft guidelines on late formulation of reservations might have the undesirable effect of encouraging late reservations and might undermine the reservations regime established by the Vienna Conventions, while contradicting the very definition of reservations. It was suggested that late formulations of reservations should be made only in exceptional cases and the Commission was urged to further examine relevant State practice concerning late reservations. The view was expressed that late reservations constitute, in fact, a different kind of declaration and the practice showed that there was an implicit agreement by contracting States to modify the treaty with regard to the late reserving State. Furthermore, a more limited role for the depositary was favoured, particularly in relation to reservations prohibited by a treaty, which should be brought to the attention of contracting Parties. Others suggested that the guidelines should clarify the role of depositaries in order to develop a uniform practice. Support was expressed for a purely informative and limited role for the depository, restricted to communicating to States the contents of the reservations; leaving the validity of such reservations to the determination of contracting parties. Therefore the depositary could only reject a reservation expressly prohibited by the treaty. The view was expressed that the concept of conditional interpretative declarations was vague and needed to be clarified. It was suggested that the ILC should reconsider the concept of conditional interpretative declarations, or that they be studied further. While the view was expressed that their effects were the same as those of reservations, others suggested that interpretative declarations should not be governed by the same rules as reservations. It was also suggested that a final decision on this issue should be taken after the examination of the effects of reservations and conditional interpretative declarations. Concerning the topic Diplomatic protection, reference was made to the progress achieved, and the Special Rapporteur was congratulated for his work. At the same time, the Commission was called upon to limit itself to the codification of existing customary rules. All speakers spoke against departing from the customary rule of continuous nationality. At the same time, it was noted that the rule of continuous nationality, while based on custom, could lead to involuntary changes of nationality in cases of marriage, adoption, and succession of States. Support was expressed for the Commission's efforts at mitigating the possible harsh application of the rule of continuous nationality, through the formulation of exceptions in the case of involuntary change of nationality, particularly in situations of State succession. A preference was expressed for distinguishing between cases of involuntary change and cases of subgrogation, assignment or adoption. It was pointed out that the rule of continuous nationality existed to prevent “protection-State shopping” or “forum shopping” and was based on the principle that the claim vests in the State of nationality, and not in the injured person. In terms of a further view, consideration needed to be given to the extent to which the fiction that an injury to the individual constitutes an injury to the State itself reflects State practice. The view was further expressed that diplomatic protection, which is essentially discretionary in nature, was not a human rights institution, and that the fact of habitual residence in itself was not enough to be a condition for the exercise of diplomatic protection. It was also stated that that the law on diplomatic protection could not serve as a legal basis for violating the prohibition on the use of force. The Commission was further requested to consider the question of “effective link” and the diplomatic protection of Stateless persons. It was further noted that the question of the nationality of legal persons was primarily regulated by national laws. Support was expressed for the approach taken by the Special Rapporteur to his study of the exhaustion of local remedies rule. It was suggested that it was unimportant whether the remedy was judicial or administrative in character. It was also suggested that the requirement that only those remedies that exist “as of right” be exhausted might be too restrictive. The suggestion was made that the future draft articles explicitly address some of the more problematic applications of the rule. A preference was further expressed for the inclusion of a reference to “available and effective” local remedies. It was also proposed that further qualifications, such as “legally” and “practically” be included, as the rule needed to be subject to strict conditions in order to prevent the defendant State from pleading the requirement in unjustifiable circumstances. However, some speakers questioned the need to qualify the rule. It was noted that a criterion of “effectiveness” would raise questions about the standards of justice employed within States. Support was further expressed for the application of both the preponderance and sine qua non tests in the determination of the nature of a claim for purposes of the local remedies rule, in the context of “mixed claims”. Others supported resort to only the preponderance test. With regard to the topic of Unilateral acts, the view was expressed that the attempt to develop a body of rules applicable to all unilateral acts was not well founded. It was also suggested that no further work should take place on the elaboration of additional draft articles until a new methodology is adopted. The view was expressed that considering the significant diversity of unilateral acts, it may not be possible to establish common rules of classification applicable to all of them. Others supported the continuation of the study. The view was expressed that the treatment of the subject required a pragmatic approach and that defining certain criterions of classification of unilateral acts would be welcome. Several suggestions were made, including: narrowing the types of unilateral acts subject to consideration by the Commission, perhaps by resorting to the more frequently encountered type or by concentrating on the characteristics of specific unilateral acts and on the legal regime applicable to each category; classifying unilateral acts on the basis of appropriate criteria that would allow grouping them according to their content and their legal effects; focusing on acts forming an autonomous source of international law, i.e. when a unilateral act constitutes a binding obligation towards another State or several States or towards the international community as a whole; adopting a more focused approach limiting the topic to a few general rules and a study of particular situations; attaching greater importance to preparatory work, as a tool which makes it possible to establish state intentions; considering the possibility of identifying a set of conclusions on the topic, rather than proceeding with the task of preparing draft articles; and resorting to the draft provisions elaborated by the Special Rapporteur as a starting point for work on the subject. In terms of a further view, a distinction should be drawn between the forms of unilateral acts and their effects or interpretation. Reference was made to the meaning of silence of a State, and it was recalled that silence has legal consequences only in situations where the State knew of a certain event or claim by another State and did not say or do anything. With regard to the effects, several variables were proposed such as claim of a right, assumption of a legal obligation, etc. Agreement was expressed with the view of the Commission that all of these effects are contingent on the validity of the unilateral acts of States. Support was expressed for the approach of a general rule of interpretation and supplementary rules of interpretation, as proposed by the Special Rapporteur. Others stated that, with relation to the interpretation of unilateral acts, it was important to pay due regard to the intention of the author States and to the restrictive interpretation of the act. Still others reiterated the importance of the classification of unilateral acts, but that it was not yet time to address the interpretation of unilateral acts. The importance of reflecting State practice when drafting articles on this topic was further stressed. It was also stated that the question of determining which unilateral acts have legally binding effects should be carefully examined. The view was expressed that an adequate analysis of state practice was necessary for a classification of unilateral acts. Reference was also made to the importance of addressing the subject of estoppel. Conversely, the view was expressed that the Commission should not expand the scope of the topic to non-autonomous unilateral acts, other forms of unilateral acts or estoppel. Concern was expressed that the Special Rapporteur had omitted dealing with unilateral declarations and conduct of States. The view was expressed that, in order for an act to be considered as unilateral, it must be able to produce legal effects in an autonomous manner and that autonomy must be an essential criterion that needs to be reflected in the definition. Support was expressed for applying, mutatis mutandis, the rules of interpretation of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties to the interpretation of unilateral acts. Others, however, preferred a process according to which the starting point would be the interpretative needs of the unilateral acts themselves, followed by a finding whether such needs would be well served by the appropriate rules of the Vienna Conventions. Some speakers were not certain whether the provisions of the Vienna Convention could be applied with respect to the interpretation of unilateral acts, having in mind their very particular nature. Instead, the intention of States should be the most important criterion in this regard. As regards Other Decisions and Conclusions of the
Commission, support was expressed for the Commission's suggestion
to take up the topics “Responsibility of International Organizations”
and “Shared Natural Resources”. At the same time, reservations
were expressed about the inclusion of the item entitled “Expulsion
of aliens”. Support was also expressed for the holding of the fifty-fourth
session of the Commission in Geneva in 2002 in two parts. Action taken by the Sixth Committee: At the same meeting, the representative of Ecuador introduced draft resolution A/C.6/56/L.20 and Corr.1 (Spanish only) entitled "Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts". The Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/589) This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002) |
|
Agenda item 163
|
Report
of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country
Background (Source: A/56/100) 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, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Malaysia, Mali, Russian Federation, Senegal, Spain, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Appreciation was expressed for the efforts of the host country authorities in helping to accommodate the needs and requirements of the diplomatic community and the hope expressed that solutions would be found to the practical problems faced by missions among which transportation, taxes and entry visas were mentioned in particular. Reference was made to the following topics discussed by the Host Country Committee: maintenance of appropriate conditions for the normal work of the delegations and missions accredited to the United Nations and observance of their privileges and immunities; security of missions and the safety of their personnel; issuance, in a timely manner, of entry visas; travel restrictions imposed by the host country on personnel of certain missions and staff members of the Secretariat of certain nationalities; financial obligations of missions and the problem of parking of diplomatic vehicles. The Host Country thanked all delegations that had expressed condolences and sympathy in connection with the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and stressed its commitment to scrupulously fulfill its obligations under the applicable agreements, including the Headquarters Agreement. Action taken by the Sixth Committee: See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/590) and Corr.1 This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002) |
|
Agenda item 164
|
Establishment
of an International Criminal Court
Background (Source: A/56/100) At its forty-ninth session, in 1994, the General Assembly,
noting that the International Law Commission had adopted a draft statute
for an international criminal court and recommended that an international
conference of plenipotentiaries be convened to conclude a convention on
the establishment of such a court, established an ad hoc committee to
review the draft statute and consider arrangements for the convening of
the conference (resolution 49/53). Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Several speakers welcomed the acceleration in the pace of ratifications of the Statute and hoped that the first meeting of the Assembly of States Parties would take place very soon. At the same time, an appeal was made to all States that had not already done so to ratify or accede to the Rome Statute. Several speakers informed the Sixth Committee of national efforts aimed at amending domestic procedures and legislation to enable the ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute. Belgium (on behalf of the European Union) announced the common position of the European Union to pursue and support an early entry into force of the Rome Statute. Special reference was made to the commitments and efforts by the Netherlands, as the host State, to help establish the Court in a timely and effective manner. The view was also expressed that States should continue to review their domestic measures for the implementation of the Rome Statute. Support was likewise expressed for the initiatives by Governments, non-governmental organizations and regional organizations aimed at facilitating and informing the development of domestic implementation of legislation and providing assistance to States in their process of ratification and implementation. Offers to provide technical assistance to interested States on the implementation of the Rome Statute, were welcomed. States were further urged to strive to ensure a universal application of the Rome Statute, and reference was made to the need for globalized justice in the globalized world. At the same time, the view was expressed that the Court should not serve as a tool of domination by any country or group of countries and any that attempts to provide special dispensations exempting certain countries from its jurisdiction should be rejected. Support was expressed for the Road Map setting out steps leading to the establishment of the Court, including the establishment of the International Sub-Committee to provide assistance to the host State. Support was expressed for the decision to recommend to the Assembly of States Parties the establishment of a contingency mechanism together with a realistic model budget for the first financial year. The suggestion was made that a report on matters within the mandate of the Preparatory Commission should be made to the Assembly of States parties. The Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court was commended for its work and for the impressive results reached at its 8th session, including the finalization of the draft Relationship Agreement between the Court and the United Nations, the draft Agreement on Privileges and Immunities, the draft Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of States Parties and the draft Financial Regulations. At the same time, delegations emphasized that in order to ensure the effective functioning of the Court from the first day of its operation still much important work remained to be done, namely on the definition of aggression, the headquarters agreement, the first year budget of the Court and procedures for election of judges and prosecutors. In that connection, it was generally felt that two sessions, of two weeks duration each, would be required in 2002 for the PrepCom to complete its mandate. Emphasis was placed on the need to elaborate an acceptable definition of the crime of aggression. Interest was expressed in a definition of the crime of aggression and in an examination of the relationship between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, without the latter's independence being undermined. The view was expressed that the appropriate threshold should be set in accordance with customary international law and that the Preparatory Commission should abstain from defining an act of aggression by a State. It was also suggested that any future consideration should be based on a principle of cooperation with the Security Council and in conformity with the United Nations Charter. Saudi Arabia indicated its intention to table a new proposal to facilitate discussions at the next session of the PrepCom. The view was expressed that grave acts of terrorism against civil populations, carried out in peace time, should be considered as crimes against humanity within the scope of the Rome Statute. Likewise, it was recommended that the crime of illegal drug trafficking warranted inclusion in the jurisdiction of the Court, due to its dire consequences for society. The International Committee on the Red Cross stated that
its Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law continued to provide
advice and technical assistance to States on ratification and implementation
of the Rome Statute, including on a whole range of measures relating to
the national implementation of humanitarian law. Action taken by the Sixth Committee: The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/56/L.21,
as orally revised, without a vote. See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/591) This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002) |
|
Agenda item 165
|
Report
of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the
Strengthening of the Role of the Organization
Background (Source: A/56/100) 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). Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: All speakers stressed the importance of implementing the provisions of the Charter related to assistance to third States affected by sanctions, as a matter of utmost importance, and supported the findings of the ad-hoc expert group meeting on the subject (A/53/312). It was suggested that the timely preparation of the report of the Secretary-General on the feasibility of the experts' recommendations would facilitate the Committee's substantive debate on the recommendations. The point was made that additional comments from the Secretary-General on this question would be helpful. It was suggested that future Secretary-General's reports on the matter be more detailed and analytical. Delegations emphasized that sanctions should be imposed with great caution and only as an exceptional measure when all other means of peaceful settlement of disputes have been exhausted. Support was expressed for the proposals to establish a trust fund and a permanent mechanism within the United Nations system to address the humanitarian, social and economic problems confronted by third States due to sanctions against target States. Some delegations expressed their strong preference for targeted sanctions and recalled Security Council resolution 1343 (2001) of 7 March 2001 by which the Council had established a two-month period prior to the entry into force of sanctions. However, the view was expressed that the emphasis on targeted sanctions was an acknowledgment that sanctions had an adverse impact, particularly on developing countries. Some delegations welcomed the establishment of the working group on general sanctions by the Security Council. The point was however made that this fact alone did not preclude the General Assembly from performing its standard-setting role. A suggestion was made that the General Assembly could have a role in approving sanctions imposed by the Security Council. It was also stressed that the General Assembly should limit itself to the consideration of Charter based sanctions. Support was expressed for the further consideration of the Russian proposal on basic conditions and standard criteria for the introduction of sanctions and other coercive measures and their implementation. The sponsor delegation was urged to revise the proposal further for consideration by the Special Committee at its next session. It was again stressed that sanctions should be used only as a last resort, should avoid impacting adversely on humanitarian needs and being used as tools of unlawful political pressure, and should be based on a proper legal framework. Some delegations also supported the working paper submitted by Libya on the strengthening of certain principles concerning the impact and application of sanctions, as well as the Cuban proposal on the strengthening of the role of the Organization and enhancing its effectiveness and the importance of their further consideration was stressed. At the same time, in referring to these three items, the view was expressed that the Committee should avoid using its finite resources to discuss issues that were on their face inappropriate. Some support was expressed for the Russian proposal on the fundamentals of the legal basis for United Nations peace-keeping operations in the context of Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. The point was made that the Committee should coordinate its work in this area with the Special Committee on Peace-keeping. In terms of a further view, the matter was more appropriately dealt with by the Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations. It was also suggested that while peacekeeping and peace enforcement should remain the primary responsibility of the Security Council, closer cooperation between regional organizations and the United Nations in these matters should be encouraged. Support was also expressed 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 the proper authorization of the Security Council outside the context of self-defence. Delegations continued to support the revised working paper submitted by Sierra-Leone and the United Kingdom on dispute prevention and settlement. In particular, the emphasis on the principle of free choice of means was welcomed. However, a point was made that the issue of dispute prevention was not sufficiently covered in the proposal. Some speakers favoured the completion of the work on the proposal at the next session of the Charter Committee, while others pointed out that it would be more important to focus on the implementation of the already existing methods and tools in this area. The need to reform the International Court of Justice was also raised by some delegations. Divergent views were expressed on the future role of the Trusteeship Council. Most delegations cautioned against its abolition, which would entail an amendment to the Charter. One delegation expressed support for converting the Council into a guardian or trustee of the global commons or the common heritage of mankind since the Council's mandate had already been fulfilled. As regards the Secretary-General's report on the Repertory of Practice of the United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of Practice of the Security Council (A/56/330), the speakers noted the progress being made and commended the practical efforts by the Secretariat to reduce the backlog in the publication thereof. At the same time, the Secretariat was urged to attach higher priority to the timely publication of the pending volumes of the Repertory and the Repertoire, in view of their importance as reference materials. Several delegations also welcomed the proposed steps aimed at the speedy dissemination of the publications, in particular through placing the published volumes on the Internet. It was also pointed out that the resources allocated to the preparation of the Repertoire were insufficient. A point was made that the additional resources, provided by the existing Trust Fund, will assist in the preparation of the Repertoire and the contributions made by several Member States to that Trust Fund were welcomed. A number of suggestions were also made as regards the
working methods of the Special Committee. Support was expressed, inter
alia, for the proposal that the General Assembly should encourage its
subsidiary organs to request the legal assistance of the Special Committee.
Some support was also expressed for the Japanese proposal on the work
methods of the Special Committee, with some delegations expressing strong
preferences for the rationalization of its procedures in order to make
it more focused and result-oriented. Action taken by the Sixth Committee: This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002) |
|
Agenda item 166
|
Measures
to eliminate international terrorism
Background (Source: A/56/100) 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. Working Group: See: Report of the Working Group (A/C.6/56/L.9) Discussion in the Plenary of the Sixth Committee: Action taken by the Sixth Committee: This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002) |
|
Agenda item 167
|
Scope
of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations
and Associated Personnel
Background (Source: A/56/100) The 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, by which the Assembly took note of the report of the Secretary-General on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel (A/55/637). That report, which the Assembly had requested at its fifty-fourth session (resolution 54/192), was submitted for consideration by the Assembly in the context of agenda item 20 (a) entitled "Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations, including special economic assistance: strengthening of the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance of the United Nations". The General Assembly, however, decided in paragraph 20 of its resolution 55/175 that the Sixth Committee should consider the report at the fifty-sixth session, under an item entitled "Scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel" (resolution 55/175). Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Speakers noted the timeliness of the discussions on the topic, and pointed to the increase in attacks on United Nations personnel, some occurring recently. Several speakers urged those States that had not ratified the 1994 UN Convention on the Safety of the UN and Associated Personnel to do so. It was acknowledged that while the main responsibility for the protection of United Nations personnel rested with countries hosting United Nations operations, the 1994 United Nations Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel strengthened the legal regime for the protection of United Nations and associated personnel. At the same time, the speakers pointed out that there was a need to provide greater protection, particularly to humanitarian workers not closely connected to a UN operation and to locally recruited personnel. In this regard, they welcomed the Report of the Secretary-General (A/55/637) and supported the measures to strengthen the existing regime of the Convention recommended in that report. There was strong support for the recommendation for the
incorporation of the key provisions of the 1994 Convention into status
of forces and status of missions agreements. There was also support for
the establishment of an ad hoc committee to consider other recommendations,
including a Protocol to the Convention to extend its application to all
UN operations and categories of personnel. Some speakers, however, expressed
reservations with regard to some of the recommendations of the Secretary-General
including the "certifying authority" of the Secretary-General
or the expansion of the scope of the Convention by way of a Protocol.
Concerns were voiced over the expansion of the scope of the Convention,
and the view was expressed that there was no need for the convening of
an ad hoc committee. The view was also expressed that any protection for
humanitarian non-governmental organizations should be subject to a separate
and different legal instrument. Yet other speakers stated their concern
about the effect that the expansion of the scope of the Convention may
have on its ratification. At the 27th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, held on 19 November 2001, the representative of New Zealand introduced
draft resolution A/C.6/56/L.18, also on behalf of Argentina, Australia,
Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark,
Ecuador, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein,
Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Republic
of Korea, Sierra Leone, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine and the United States of
America. France, Greece, Luxembourg, Poland and Romania subsequently joined
as sponsors. This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002)
|
|
Agenda item 168
|
Observer
Status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
in the General Assembly
Background (Source: A/56/100) This item was included in the agenda of the fifty-fifth
session of the General Assembly in 2000, at the request of Sweden, on
behalf of the following States members of the International Institute
for Democracy and Electoral Assistance: Australia, Barbados, Belgium,
Botswana, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, India, Namibia,
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay
(A/55/226). Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Action taken by the Sixth Committee: This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002) |
|
Agenda item 170
|
Observer
status for the International Development Law Institute in the General Assembly
Background (Source: A/56/100) The item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly's fifty-sixth session on the request of Austria. Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Action taken by the Sixth Committee: |
|
Agenda item 172
|
Observer
status for the International Hydrographic Organization in the General Assembly
Background (Source: A/56/100) The item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly's fifty-sixth session on the request of Monaco. Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Action taken by the Sixth Committee: See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/597)
and Corr. 1 |
|
Agenda item 173
|
Observer Status for the Community of Sahelo-Saharan States in the General Assembly Background The item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly's fifty-sixth session on the request of Sudan. Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Action taken by the Sixth Committee: |
|
Agenda item 174
|
International convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings Background The item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly's fifty-sixth session on the request of France and Germany. Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Reference was made to the need to develop internationally binding legal norms in order to counter human cloning as a threat to human dignity. At the same time, it was observed that the proposal was strictly limited to the set of issues relating to the banning of human cloning, for which international consensus existed. It was further noted that the process was guided by the need to include all interested parties, and the role of UNESCO in that regard was stressed. Several speakers commended the sponsor delegations, France and Germany, for their timely initiative. Some preferred to move forward cautiously, and suggested that a detailed examination of the subject precede any discussion on the appropriate forum and content. It was suggested that such examination should involve qualified representatives from the medical profession as well as experts in bioethics and philosophy and medical experts. It was also suggested that the expertise of UNESCO be taken into account. Several delegations reported on domestic efforts being undertaken to regulate the cloning of human beings. It was proposed that the Convention consider all the various purposes of cloning, including therapeutic purposes, and that it should, for example, ban the marketing of services relating to cloning. In terms of a further view, a more neutral title for the convention should be adopted since an outright ban might serve to drive the research underground, making it more difficult to regulate. Others supported extending the scope of the convention to include banning therapeutic cloning, the production of embryos as suppliers of specialized stem cells, and the use of embryos in the treatment of certain illnesses. All speakers supported the proposal to establish an Ad
Hoc Committee to negotiate a mandate for the future development of such
an international agreement. It was noted that the draft resolution was
primarily procedural in nature and did not prejudice the final outcome
of the Ad Hoc Committee's work. Action taken by the Sixth Committee: This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002) |
|
Agenda item 176
|
Observer Status for Partners in Population and Development in the General Assembly Background The item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly's fifty-sixth session on the request of Bangladesh, China, Colombia, Egypt, the Gambia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Action taken by the Sixth Committee: This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002) |
|
Agenda item 21(f)
|
Cooperation between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union Background The item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly's fifty-sixth session on the request of India. Work undertaken at the Fifty-sixth session: Action taken by the Sixth Committee: This agenda item
was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh
session (2002) |
|
Created and maintained by: |
|
