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 fifty-fifth 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 sixty-third session (2008)

Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts

Background (Source: A/59/100)

At its fifty-sixth 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A), 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 9 November 2004, the representative of Trinidad and Tobago introduced draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.22.

At the 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 sixty-second session (2007)

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 fifty-seventh 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A), 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representative of Sweden introduced draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.13, as orally revised.

At the 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 sixty-first session (2006)

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 fifty-seventh 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A), 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 sixty-first session (2006)

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 fifty-eighth 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A), 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 5 November, the representative of Austria, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced draft resolution A/C.6/59/L.16, entitled "United Nations Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property"; containing the text of the United Nations Convention in its annex.

At the 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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.

Background (Source: A/59/100)

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 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 fifty-eighth 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 United Nations 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 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its thirty-seventh session, at its 1st (E, F, S, R, C, A), 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 4, 5, 26 and 29 October 2004, respectively.

At the 1st (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 26 October, the representative of Austria introduced a draft resolution entitled "Report of the United Nations 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 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law" (A/C.6/59/L.12).

At its 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 sixtieth session (2005)

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 fifty-eighth 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A), 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A), 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 24th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations, 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 sixtieth session (2005)

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 fifty-eighth 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 United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 17 November 2004.

At the 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations and the Headquarters Agreement to provide full facilities for the normal functioning of the missions accredited to the United Nations, 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 sixtieth session (2005)

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 fifty-eighth 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 United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations 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 United Nations, 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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.

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 United Nations that might not require amendments to the Charter (resolution 3349 (XXIX)).

Meanwhile, another item, entitled "Strengthening of the role of the United Nations 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 fifty-eighth 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A), 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 6th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 24th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 United Nations. 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 United Nations. 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 United Nations.

General appreciation was voiced for the progress made in the elimination of the backlog of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 8 November, the representative of Egypt introduced a draft resolution entitled "Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization" (A/C.6/59/L.17). Also at the 24th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions" (A/C.6/59/L.18).

At the 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 17 November, the Secretary of the Committee made a statement regarding the programme budget implications of the draft resolution.

At its 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 sixtieth session (2005).

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 fifty-eighth 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 United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A), 8th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 9th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations 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 United Nations in combating terrorism. A view was expressed that the legislative authority of the General Assembly should not be relinquished to another organ of the United Nations. 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 sixtieth session (2005)

Scope of legal protection under the Convention on Safety of United Nations 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 United Nations and associated personnel (resolution 56/89). The Assembly continued its consideration of the item at its fifty-seventh session (resolution 57/28).

At its fifty-eighth session, the General Assembly decided that the Ad Hoc Committee on the Scope of Legal Protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A), 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 20 and 25 October and 17 November 2004.

At the 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations 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 sixtieth session (2005)

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 fifty-eighth 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A), 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 27th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 United Nations 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 United Nations 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.

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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the delegation of China introduced the item and the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/59/L.3. At the 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the delegation of Botswana introduced the item and the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/59/L.5. At the 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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.

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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the delegation of Kazakhstan introduced the item and the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/59/L.4. At the 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, delegation of Saint Lucia introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/59/L.7.

At the 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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.

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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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 (E, F, S, R, C, A) 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
United Nations
+1 (212) 963-5332

Copyright (c) 2004
United Nations