Background (Source: A/60/100)

The United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law was established by the General Assembly at its twentieth session, in 1965 (resolution 2099 (XX)). Its continuation was subsequently authorized by the Assembly at its annual sessions until its twenty-sixth session, and thereafter biennially (resolutions 2204 (XXI), 2313 (XXII), 2464 (XXIII), 2550 (XXIV), 2698 (XXV), 2838 (XXVI), 3106 (XXVIII), 3502 (XXX), 32/146, 34/144, 36/108, 38/129, 40/66, 42/148, 44/28, 46/50, 48/29, 50/43, 52/152, 54/102 and 56/77).

In the performance of the functions entrusted to him by the General Assembly, the Secretary-General is assisted by the Advisory Committee on the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law, the members of which are appointed by the Assembly.

At its fifty-eighth session, the General Assembly authorized the Secretary-General to carry out in 2004 and 2005 the activities specified in his report, including the provision of: (a) a number of fellowships in both 2004 and 2005, to be awarded at the request of Governments of developing countries, (b) a minimum of one scholarship in both 2004 and 2005 under the Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe Memorial Fellowship on the Law of the Sea, subject to the availability of new voluntary contributions made specifically to the fellowship fund, and (c) subject to the overall resources for the Programme, assistance in the form of a travel grant for one participant from each developing country, who would be invited to possible regional courses to be organized in 2004 and 2005; requested the Secretary-General to invite Member States and interested organizations, as well as individuals, to make voluntary contributions towards the financing of the Programme or otherwise to assist in its implementation and possible expansion; and also requested the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its sixtieth session on the implementation of the Programme during 2004 and 2005 and, following consultations with the Advisory Committee, to submit recommendations regarding the execution of the Programme in subsequent years (resolution 58/73).

The following 25 Member States are members of the Advisory Committee for a period of four years, beginning on 1 January 2004 and ending on 31 December 2007: Canada, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, Russian Federation, Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America and Uruguay (resolution 58/73).

See also the fifty-eighth session

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 78 at its 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 2, 3 and 9 November 2005.

The Chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Programme of Assistance, Mr. Robert Tachie-Menson (Ghana), introduced the draft resolution (A/C.6/60/L.5) on the item.

Statements were made by the representatives of Mexico, Poland, the United Republic of Tanzania and the Russian Federation. Delegations remarked on the importance of international law and that the Programme of Assistance activities, as described in the Report of the Secretary-General [A/60/441], including the fellowship programmes, regional courses and legal publications, contributed to the spread of knowledge of the law, especially in developing countries. It was pointed out that the fellowship programmes offered the young jurists selected the opportunity to network, thus furthering the development of their role in the enhancement of international law and the rule of law. Some delegations emphasized the need for increased voluntary contributions to the Programme of Assistance, in order that the achievements of the Programme may be augmented.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 2 November, the representative of Ghana introduced a draft resolution entitled "United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law" (A/C.6/60/L.5).

At its 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 9 November, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.5 without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of the agenda item 78.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the sixty-second session (2007)

Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its thirty-eighth session

Background (Source: A/60/100)

The General Assembly established the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law at its twenty-first session, in 1966, to promote the progressive harmonization and unification of the law of international trade, and requested the Commission to submit an annual report to the Assembly (resolution 2205 (XXI)).

The Commission began its work in 1968. It 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 General 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-ninth session, the General Assembly, inter alia, requested the Secretary-General to publish the Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law and to ensure that it became generally known and available (resolution 59/40).

At the same session, the General Assembly endorsed the efforts and initiatives of the Commission, aimed at increasing coordination of and cooperation on legal activities of international and regional organizations active in the field of international trade law and appealed to relevant international and regional organizations to coordinate their legal activities with those of the Commission; reiterated its appeal to Governments, the relevant bodies of the United Nations system, organizations, institutions and individuals 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, in order to increase expert representation from developing countries at sessions of the Commission and its working groups; encouraged the Commission to further explore different approaches to the use of partnerships with non-State actors in the implementation of its mandate; and requested the Secretary-General to bear in mind the particular characteristics of the mandate and work of the Commission in implementing page limits with respect to the documentation of the Commission (resolution 59/39).

See also the fifty-ninth session

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 79 at its 1st (E, F, S, R, C, A), 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 3, 4, 21 and 26 October 2005.

At the 1st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Chairman of UNCITRAL at its thirty-eighth session presented the report of the Commission.

Statements were made by the representatives of Austria, France, the United Kingdom, Thailand, Belarus, the Republic of Korea, Namibia (on behalf of the Group of African States), Singapore, Guatemala, Australia, Spain, Algeria, Nigeria, Canada, Kenya, India, Japan, Morocco, Venezuela, the Russian Federation, China, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Mexico and the United States of America.

The delegations welcomed the approval by UNCITRAL of the draft convention on the use of electronic communication in international contracts, which would facilitate electronic commerce, create legal certainty and address problems related to fraud. The General Assembly was urged to adopt the draft convention at its current session.

Several delegations commended the Commission on the progress it had achieved with regard to the various topics under consideration, including procurement, arbitration, transport law and security interests. Several delegations commended the efforts of the Secretariat of UNCITRAL to promote awareness of its work in the field of development and harmonization of international trade law and its initiatives in developing its training and technical assistance programmes. Concern was expressed with regard to the fact that few contributions had been made to the trust funds established to assist developing countries to participate in the work of the Commission. Furthermore, several delegations stressed the importance of continuing the coordination and cooperation between UNCITRAL and other organizations in order to prevent duplication of work and inconsistencies in legal instruments.

Several delegations welcomed the Commission's plans to explore ways to combat commercial fraud and commended the Commission for cooperating with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in this area.

Several delegations welcomed the convening of an UNCITRAL congress in 2007 to review the results of the past and current work programmes as well as to elaborate topics for future work. Attention was also drawn to the fact that 2005 marked the 25th anniversary for the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Several delegations also referred to the 30th anniversary, next year, of the adoption of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, which will be celebrated in Vienna on 6 and 7 April 2006. A suggestion was made that the Commission consider establishing a group to monitor the implementation of legal instruments already adopted by the Commission in order to identify the difficulties that States may experience.

Delegations stressed the importance of technical assistance programmes in the area of international trade law. In this context, support was expressed for the creation within the Secretariat of a unit on technical assistance and the efforts to collect and disseminate legal material related to the instruments adopted by the Commission.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 21 October, the representative of Austria, on behalf of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay, subsequently joined by Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, the Gambia and Latvia, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its thirty-eighth session"
(A/C.6/60/L.7).

Also at the 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 21 October, the Chairman of the Committee introduced a draft resolution entitled "United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts" (A/C.6/60/L.8).

At its 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 26 October, the Committee adopted draft resolutions A/C.6/60/L.7 and A/C.6/60/L.8 without a vote.

After the adoption of draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.8, the representative of France made a statement in explanation of position.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 79.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the sixty-first session (2006)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-seventh session

Background (Source: A/60/100)

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-ninth session, the General Assembly expressed its appreciation to the Commission for the completion of the first reading of the draft articles and commentary on Diplomatic protection and of the draft principles on Allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities; drew the attention of Governments to the importance for the Commission of having their views on the various aspects involved in these topics on its agenda; invited Governments to provide information regarding: (a) their practice, bilateral or regional, relating to the allocation of groundwaters from transboundary aquifer systems and the management of non-renewable transboundary aquifer systems relating to the topic currently entitled "Shared natural resources", and (b) State practice on the topic "Unilateral acts of States"; endorsed the decision of the Commission to include in its agenda the topics "Expulsion of aliens" and "Effects of armed conflicts on treaties"; and recommended that the debate on the report of the International Law Commission at the sixtieth session of the General Assembly commence on 24 October 2005 (resolution 59/41).

See also the fifty-ninth session

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Committee considered the item at its 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 15th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 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) and 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings from 24 to 26 and on 28 and 31 October, and from 1 to 3 and on 16 November 2005

The Chairman of the International Law Commission at its fifty-seventh session introduced the report of the Commission: chapters I to III, VI, VIII and XII at the 11th meeting, on 24 October; chapters IV, IX and X at the 13th meeting, on 26 October; and chapters V, VII and XI at the 17th meeting, on 31 October. The Chairman of the International Law Commission made a concluding statement at the 20th meeting, on 3 November.

Statements were made by the representatives of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, China, Cuba, Cuba, Denmark (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Egypt, El Salvador, Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries), France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden (also on behalf of the Nordic countries), Switzerland, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom (also on behalf of the European Union. The following countries aligned themselves with the statement: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey, and Ukraine), the United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela.

With regard to the topic Shared natural resources, the progress made on the topic including the submission by the Special Rapporteur of a complete set of draft articles on the law on transboundary aquifers was welcomed. Support was expressed for the flexible approach to the topic, proposed by the Special Rapporteur, allowing for the adaptation of the rules being developed, by means of bilateral or regional accords. It was also suggested that it was important to make clear that the work on the topic did not constitute codification since the draft articles went beyond established law.

While some delegations expressed support for the initial focus on transboundary aquifers, others expressed concern over the limited scope of the draft articles, noting that it would have been better to have overarching rules on topic shared natural resources as a whole. In terms of a further view, the Commission was cautioned against taking up oil and gas; while others expressed the wish for the consideration of such related aspects.

Other suggestions included focusing on the rules relating to the relationship between aquifer states, since any extension of the topic to obligations of non-aquifer states would delay the project. In terms of another view, it was important to acknowledge the international dimension of the topic and to include duties applicable to all States. Others stressed the importance of the principle of the sovereignty of aquifer states over underground waters and reaffirmed the relevance of resolution 1803 (XVII) on permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Caution was expressed against unnecessarily universalizing the regime for transboundary waters. The inclusion of a provision relating to developing countries was also favoured. Several delegations welcomed in particular the involvement of experts in the elaboration of the draft articles.

It was further suggested that the Commission focus only on aspects that differed from the 1997 Convention on the law of non-navigational uses of international watercourses, while others underscored the usefulness of the 1997 Convention as a model, which could be resorted to together with other approaches. Doubts were also expressed as to the appropriateness of applying the 1997 Convention as a precedent since it had not yet entered into force.

As to the final form, several delegations preferred to defer the matter until the content of the draft articles was made more precise. Nevertheless, some delegations expressed a preference for recommendatory principles or a framework approach that would provide the basis for the elaboration of legally binding agreements. Others observed that the framework approach needed to be revisited. Still others opted for the elaboration of a model regional agreement. Several delegations noted that context-specific arrangements, including bilateral and regional arrangements, were the best way of addressing pressures on transboundary groundwaters, while others favoured a holistic approach. It was proposed that the Commission develop a list of considerations or guidelines that States may taken into account in negotiating bilateral or regional arrangements.

In connection with the topic Effects of armed conflicts on treaties, all delegations supported the general approach to the topic taken by the Commission, namely to ensure the stability of treaty relations between States. Agreement was expressed with the view that the topic formed part of the law of treaties and not that relating to the use of force. Support was expressed for the inclusion within the scope of the topic of treaties between States as well as those concluded by international organizations, and of both international and non-international armed conflicts, as well as the question of military occupation. Others expressed doubts on including such issues within the scope of the topic. It was further suggested that the draft articles also apply to treaties which are being provisionally applied. As regards the phrase "armed conflict", it was suggested that any definition take into account the report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

Support was expressed for the basic proposition of the Special Rapporteur, in article 3, that the outbreak of an armed conflict does not ipso facto terminate or suspend the operation of treaties, while others raised concerns. It was proposed that the position of third States be considered.

As regards the resort to the concept of the intention of the parties as the indicia of the treaty's susceptibility to termination or suspension, it was maintained that it was an important criterion, albeit not the only one, in determining whether a treaty is terminated or suspended following the outbreak of armed conflict. Others expressed concerns, and called for additional criteria. In terms of another suggestion, the concept could be supplemented by the criterion of the "nature" of the treaty.

Several delegations preferred greater clarification of the indicative list in draft article 7, while others opposed its inclusion. In terms of another suggestion, the indicative list, if it were to be retained, should include "treaties creating or modifying boundaries", as well as a reference to the Charter of the United Nations.

Several delegations were of the view that draft article 10 had to be revisited to make it clear that a State should be permitted to avoid any treaty obligations not in conformity with its inherent right of self-defence, or with a decision of the Security Council taken under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. It was suggested that further consideration be given to the question of the legality of conduct of the parties to an armed conflict and the possible asymmetry in the relationship between an aggressor State and a victim State.

Opposition was also expressed to the inclusion of draft article 11 on the legal effects of decisions of the Security Council taken in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

Several delegations expressed their gratitude to the Secretariat for its memorandum on the topic (A/CN.4/550).

Concerning the topic Responsibility of international organizations, the delegations commended the Commission for its progress on the topic, notably the adoption of draft articles 8 to 16 at its recent session. Reference was made to the complexity of the topic in light of the diversity of international organizations. Some delegations stressed the need for further examination of the notion of "international organization", account being taken of entities that are not (purely) intergovernmental.

As to the question of the legal nature of the internal rules of an international organization, support was expressed for the present inconclusive provision, while others maintained that further clarification was required. In terms of a third view, the provision was unnecessary. The view was also expressed that paragraph 2 of draft article 8 (dealing with international obligations established by the "rules" of an international organization) would not cover procedural or administrative rules.

Regarding the relationship between the responsibility of international organizations and that of their member States, the view was expressed that the articles should be redrafted to cover the full range of possibilities. Some delegations questioned the distinction between recommendations and binding decisions. While support was expressed for the Commission's approach, others felt that it required further consideration. It was suggested that the special case of integration organizations also be covered, while others considered it as distinct from general international law. It was also suggested that the Commission consider the question of joint and several responsibility for States and international organizations, with a view to including a provision on proportionate responsibility sharing.

With regard to the questions raised in the Commission's report, the view was expressed that assistance to an international organization in the commission of an internationally wrongful act was a question of State responsibility, but that, in light of its exclusion from the draft articles on State responsibility, it could be included in the commentary.

As to future work, several delegations believed that the Commission should consider issues relating to State responsibility, while others felt that such issues were beyond the scope of the topic given the differences between States and international organizations, as well as the diversity of such organizations.

Concerning the topic Diplomatic protection, general support was expressed for the Commission's decision not to include the doctrine of "clean hands" within the draft articles on diplomatic protection. Supported was expressed for the basic approach that States have a right, not a duty, to exercise diplomatic protection. Support was also expressed for the basic principle in draft article 7, dealing with cases of multiple nationality, as well as draft article 8 on the diplomatic protection of Stateless persons and refugees.

In terms of suggestions for the second reading, it was proposed that the question of the consequences of diplomatic protection should be considered; that the Commission reconsider the provisions on the diplomatic protection of legal persons; and that provisions be included on the exercise of diplomatic protection, as well as on the allocation of compensation in the context of group claims. Some delegations cautioned against draft article 17 being interpreted as allowing for the undertaking of coercive measures.

The Commission was encouraged to conclude the second reading of the draft articles at its 2006 session. Some delegations expressed support for the eventual adoption of an international convention on diplomatic protection.

As regards the topic Expulsion of aliens, support was expressed for the general approach taken by the Special Rapporteur in trying to reconcile the right of States to expel aliens and the need to ensure respect for human rights. In terms of another view, the appropriateness of the topic's consideration by the Commission was questioned.

Emphasis was placed on the importance of a proper delimitation of the scope of the topic, with several delegations favoring the exclusion of questions relating to international humanitarian law, and others that of large scale expulsions as a result of a territorial dispute as well as expulsion from occupied territories. Still others suggested that mass expulsions occurring in such contexts might be covered. A preference was also expressed for the exclusion of issues related to non-admission and immigration law in general. In terms of another view, questions relating to preventive measures ("éloignement") and to the admission of expelled aliens could be considered. Others also proposed the inclusion of the situation of illegal aliens.

Several delegations stressed the importance of considering legitimate grounds for expulsion, while others also highlighted some procedural requirements, such as motivation, due process and judicial review. It was also suggested that decisions on expulsion should be taken on an individual basis. Several delegations considered collective expulsion as being prohibited under international law.

It was proposed that an in-depth study of national legislation and case-law be undertaken, with the support of the Secretariat, and which would give equal attention to developed and developing countries. The Commission was also called upon to take into account the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Some doubts were expressed as to the possible outcome of the work of the Commission on this topic. In terms of some suggestions, it could be a repertory of practice, a political declaration, or a text that could eventually become a Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

As regards the topic Unilateral acts of States, several delegations welcomed the work accomplished by the Commission thus far. All delegations noted that the topic raised particular challenges. While some expressed doubts as to continuing its study, others emphasized the importance of continuing the work.

Emphasis was further placed on retaining the current focus towards an analysis of State practice. Several observations were made, including: that it was difficult to define a unilateral act of the State; that the intention of the State to commit itself was an important feature; and that it may not be appropriate to produce definitions and rules that draw parallels with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Commission was encouraged to also consider within the scope of the topic unilateral acts of States which have extraterritorial effect, including national legislation.

Several delegations suggested that the work of the Commission's working group on the topic should focus on unilateral acts stricto sensu, and that it would be useful to reach a consensus on preliminary conclusions on how it should proceed with and conclude the topic. It was suggested that the Commission could take stock of the work done in the past ten years and identify some basic principles, guidelines or conclusions accompanied by examples of State practice that may be of use to States. Some delegations did not rule out the possibility of a binding instrument.

The Commission was encouraged to conclude its work on the topic at its 2006 session.

On the topic Reservations to treaties, delegations expressed gratitude for the continued work on the preparation of a Guide to Practice seeking to clarify the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. At the same time, emphasis was placed on the importance of consistency with the Vienna Convention, in particular articles 19 to 23 thereof. The view was expressed that the Guide to Practice should serve as a reference tool in the daily work of Governments.

Preliminary approval was expressed regarding the observations by the Special Rapporteur on the definition of the concept of "object and purpose" of a treaty, although it was specified that the criterion was not applicable in respect of a reservation that affected a preemptory norm of international law, particularly procedural protections for human rights. Agreement was expressed with the Special Rapporteur's view that "object and purpose" should be seen as a single term. Some other delegations questioned the usefulness of attempting to define such a term, and noted that the definition currently offered by the Special Rapporteur did not add significant clarity. It was further proposed that the definition could be improved with the inclusion of references to doctrine and case law.

With regard to the question posed to States regarding the practice of maintaining treaty relations despite having objected to a reservation as incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, some delegations indicated that such decisions were of a practical nature, and that consistent with article 21 of the Vienna Convention, the objecting State could determine the consequences of its objection on the bilateral treaty relations. On the other hand, other delegations were of the view that when a reservation was incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty, the reserving State could not be considered a party to the treaty. It was noted that given the bureaucratic difficulties inherent in objecting to a reservation, limited significance should be given to the failure to object. It was also noted that objections to incompatible reservations do not have the same legal effects as objections to reservations that have satisfied the object and purpose test. Several Governments highlighted their practice on the issue, under which such reservations are considered per se invalid, and severed from the treaty, which remains enforceable. It was pointed out that in such a case, guideline 3.3.3, allowing the acceptance of an invalid reservation was unnecessary. It was further suggested that the practice of objecting to a reservation under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the basis of its inconformity with the object and purpose of the treaty should be distinguished from the practice of objecting to a reservation under articles 20 and 21 by dealing with them in separate sub-guidelines and by referring to the former as "rejection" and the latter as "objection". In this connection, differing views were expressed as to whether reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty should be referred to as "invalid" rather than "impermissible" or "opposable". In terms of a further view, a State which objected on the ground of the incompatibility of the reservation with the object and purpose, but chose to retain a treaty relation with the reserving State, might in fact merely be making a simple objection in line with Article 21 of the Vienna Convention. In terms of another suggestion, the Commission could consider proposing the establishment of an authority to decide on the validity of reservations, although opposition was expressed to giving such authority to the depositary.

Concerning draft guideline 3.1.7, on vague reservations, some delegations pointed out that vague reservations caused significant legal uncertainty and caused difficulties for potential objecting States. It was suggested that a procedure for clarifying a vague reservation with the formulating State be set forth in a draft guideline. Alternatively, it suggested that the vague reservations could be considered invalid since they did not pertain to "certain provisions of a treaty" as required by article 2 of the Vienna Convention. Others were of the view that the automatic qualification of vague reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty was too severe.

While it was suggested that human rights treaties might require special consideration, the view was expressed that a separate regime should not be created for human rights treaties in the draft guidelines. It was also suggested that an additional guideline dealing with reservations relating to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice be included.

Support was further expressed for holding a seminar on the topic, possibly in connection with the annual informal legal advisor's meeting.

With regard to the topic Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, appreciation was expressed for the results achieved thus far by the Study Group of the Commission. While the basic approach that focuses on the substantive aspects of fragmentation was welcomed, some delegations expressed reservations on the topic as a whole as well as regarding its eventual outcome. The view was expressed that the Commission should exercise restraint when finalizing its work since the content of the topic was uncertain. Others were of the view that that the outcome of the studies would be of great reference value to practitioners. At the same time, it was noted that it was important for practitioners to have a clear understanding of the relationships among various instruments. In terms of a further view, the outcome should be confined to the analytical study itself, and should not be prescriptive as implied by the terms "guidelines" and "principles" (nor was it suitable for the elaboration of draft articles). Others maintained that guidelines of a general nature may be appropriate to avoid the academic orientation of the topic. The Commission was encouraged to complete its work on the topic at its 2006 session.

Concerning the topic International liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities (international liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities), it was noted that the Commission had achieved significant progress in the completion on first reading in 2004 of the draft principles on allocation of loss, which struck a fair balance between the rights and obligations of the operator and the victim. The Commission was encouraged to conclude the second reading of the draft articles at its 2006 session.

As regards chapter XII concerning other decisions and conclusions of the Commission, several delegations supported the Commission's decision to include the topic "the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)" in its work plan. The view was expressed that the topic should include an analysis of the principle of "universal" jurisdiction. It was also suggested that the Commission reconsider it programme with a view to ending some topics which have been on the agenda for a long time. Emphasis was placed on the importance of the Commission taking into account the statements made in the Sixth Committee.

Suggestions for new topics included: preemptive use of force in international law; the responsibility to protect; and international disaster relief law.

Opposition was expressed to the shortening of the annual sessions of the Commission. Concerns were also expressed as to the budgetary constraints imposed on the Commission. Some delegations called for the restoration of the payment of appropriate honoraria to Commission members, or at least for the Special Rapporteurs.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 16 November, the representative of Jordan, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-seventh session” (A/C.6/60/L.14).

At the same meeting the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.14 without a vote.

The Committee thus completed its consideration of agenda item 80.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the sixty-first session (2006)

Report of the Special Cttee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization

Background (Source: A/60/100)

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, 57/24 and 58/248).

At its fifty-ninth session, the General Assembly decided that the Special Committee should hold its next session from 14 to 24 March 2005, and requested it to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at its sixtieth session (resolution 59/44). The Special Committee met at United Nations Headquarters from 14 to 18 March 2005.
At the same session, the General Assembly requested the Special Committee, at its session in 2005, 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 sixtieth 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 sixtieth session (resolution 59/45).

See also the fifty-ninth session

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 82 at its 7th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 8th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 14 and 19 October and on 9 November 2005.

The Chairman of the 2005 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 (A/60/33).

The Director of the Codification Division, Office of Legal Affairs, made a statement on the status of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs. The Acting Chief of the Security Council Practices and Charter Research Branch made a statement on the status of the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.

Statements were made by the representatives of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Namibia (on behalf of the African Group), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (on behalf of the European Union), Argentina (on behalf of the Rio Group), Belarus, India, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China, Nigeria, Ukraine, Guatemala, the Russian Federation, Cuba, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Cameroon, Japan, Viet Nam, Sierra Leone, Thailand, Jordan, Kenya, United States of America, Algeria, Morocco, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Republic of Korea, Turkey, Egypt and Costa Rica.

Delegations welcomed the report of the Special Committee and recalled that it had indicated its availability to consider any proposals relating to the reform of the Charter which arose from the High-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly. Several delegations stressed that the Special Committee should play an active role in the implementation of Charter related decisions outlined in the 2005 World Summit Outcome (A/60/Res/1), particularly to its sections on "Charter of the United Nations" (paragraphs 176-178) and "Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" (paras.138-140). However, a view was expressed that the Special Committee should refrain from taking action on proposals in the 2005 World Summit Outcome , since not all delegations had been involved in its negotiation process.

Some delegations reiterated that the Special Committee should avoid dealing with issues that have been assigned and are examined elsewhere.

With respect to the Implementation of the Charter provisions related to assistance to third States affected by sanctions, some delegations welcomed the Report of the Secretary-General (A/60/320). Some delegations reiterated 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. It was recalled that even targeted sanctions could entail negative repercussions. Some other delegations expressed support for the use of targeted sanctions by the Security Council and emphasized that sanctions could constitute an effective measure against threats to international peace and security. In this regard, they pointed to the recognition within the 2005 World Summit Outcome that the imposition of sanctions remains an important tool for maintaining international peace and security.

Support was also expressed for the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Expert Group (A/53/312). Some delegations expressed the view that the General Assembly should take a greater role in the imposition and implementation of sanctions by establishing, for example, an open-ended working group on sanctions or a working group of the Sixth Committee to address the issue. It was pointed out that sanctions should only be used as a last resort, and be targeted, limited in duration, non-selective, and imposed in conformity with international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Some delegations stressed that the unilateral imposition of sanctions did not fulfil these criteria, and was unlawful. It was also noted that the issues regarding the improper use of sanctions were related to the need for reform of the Security Council.

Several delegations recalled the relevant sections of the 2005 World Summit Outcome and stressed the need for fair and clear procedures for the listing and delisting of individuals on sanctions lists, and the granting of humanitarian exemptions.

Some delegations expressed the view that Article 50 of the United Nations Charter should be effectively implemented in order to adequately assist third States affected by sanctions. Support was expressed for the establishment of an assistance fund or the granting of commercial exemptions. On the other hand, the point was made that Article 50 does not require the Council to take action to resolve problems of third States related to the application of sanctions. Consequently, it was suggested that assistance be sought through international financial institutions.

Support was expressed for the work done by the Security Council's Informal Working Group on General Issues of Sanctions and by the Analytical support and monitoring team. In particular, the publication of the draft conclusions by the Chair of the Working Group was welcomed and it was suggested that the document receive wide distribution. Some delegations welcomed the relevant workshops, seminars and studies undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations and called for comprehensive studies on the effect of sanctions, particularly in Africa.

Support was expressed for the Russian Federation proposal on Basic conditions and standard criteria for the introduction and implementation of sanctions and other coercive measures. Some delegations viewed it as constituting a good basis for future discussions within the Special Committee. It was stressed that the imposition of sanctions was a tool to be used with prudence, as a last resort and not unilaterally, after all peaceful means of settlement of dispute have been exhausted and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. The opinion was expressed that the General Assembly should be empowered to review, case-by-case, resolutions of the Security Council relating to the international peace and security, including those on the use of force and on sanctions. A view was further expressed that the Russian proposal was ready for finalization and consideration by the General Assembly.

The proposal by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on strengthening certain principles concerning the impact and application of sanctions also received some support from some delegates.

Support was expressed by some delegations for the proposal on the legal basis for peacekeeping operations. A point was made that the Committee's work on legal aspects of peacekeeping complements the work of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations on practical issues of peacekeeping. It was suggested that the Sixth Committee seek ways of working with the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations to ensure congruence between political, operational and legal aspects of peacekeeping. Some other delegations felt that this is a proposal that would best be dealt with in other fora.

Support was expressed by some delegations for the proposals submitted by Cuba and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, concerning the "Strengthening of the role of the Organization and enhancing its effectiveness", and "the strengthening of the role of the Organization in the maintenance of international peace and security", respectively. Support was also expressed by some delegations for the joint proposal submitted by Belarus and the Russian Federation, regarding request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ on 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 the right to self-defence. Some other delegations remained sceptical about the feasibility of these proposals.

Delegations stressed the importance of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council and commended the Secretariat for its efforts to advance the work on these two publications. However, concern was expressed that work had been slow and had been suspended in certain offices due to lack of funds. An appeal was made to the Secretary-General to intensify cooperation with academic institutions for the preparation of studies for both publications, and to States to make voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund on the Repertory. Several delegations welcomed the progress being made toward making the Repertory available on the internet without cost for the Organization. However, it was pointed out by some other delegations that the financing of the Repertory might not be in accordance with the strict prioritization and reallocation of resources needed for the reform of the Organization.

Delegations emphasized the important role played by the International Court of Justice in the peaceful settlement of disputes and called for the implementation of its judgments. In this connection reference was made to the passage in the 2005 World Summit Outcome emphasizing the important role played by the Court. Some delegations invited the States that have not yet accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ, to do so.

As to the status and future role of the Trusteeship Council, it was stated that paragraph 176 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome has provided the direction for the work of the Special Committee.

Several delegations stressed the need to improve the working methods of the Special Committee and enhance its efficiency.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 9 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.6/60/L.13). 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.6/60/L.13 without a vote.

The representative of Venezuela spoke in explanation of position before taking action on the draft resolution.

The Committee thus completed its consideration of agenda item 82.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the sixty-first session (2006)

Background (Source: A/60/100)

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 and fifty-eighth sessions (resolutions 57/28 and 58/82).

At its fifty-ninth 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 11 to 15 April 2005, 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 sixtieth session of the General Assembly within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee; requested the Ad Hoc Committee to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at its sixtieth 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; 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 sixtieth session on the measures taken to implement the resolution (resolution 59/47).

See also the fifty-ninth session

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 8th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 9th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 19 and 20 October and 16 November 2005.

At the 8th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting of the Sixth Committee, on 19 October 2005, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Working Group introduced the report of the Ad Hoc Committee and the report of the Working Group. Furthermore, it was announced that informal consultations on the text of a draft optional protocol would continue among interested delegations during the session with a view to finalizing discussions on the outstanding issues. The Legal Counsel also made an oral statement on the measures taken to implement General Assembly resolution 59/47.

Statement were made by the representatives of the United Kingdom (on behalf of the European Union; the following countries aligned themselves with the statement: the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania; the candidate countries Croatia and Turkey; the countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro; the EFTA countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area; and other aligning countries Ukraine and Moldova), Namibia (on behalf of the African Group), Pakistan, Japan, Jordan, Zambia, Kenya, Switzerland, Uganda, Sudan, Russian Federation, Republic of Korea, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Cuba, Mexico, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, China, Brazil, Guatemala, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia and Botswana.

Delegations condemned the continuing attacks against United Nations and associated personnel and urged States to ensure that such crimes do not go unpunished and that the perpetrators are brought to justice.

While several delegations welcomed the inclusion by the Secretary-General of core provisions of the 1994 Convention in the status-of-forces, status-of-mission and host country agreements, the importance of universal acceptance of the 1994 Convention was also emphasized. Furthermore, delegations highlighted the urgent need to expand the scope of legal protection under the 1994 Convention to include a broader category of operations. In this connection, several delegations expressed their support for the inclusion of the term "peacebuilding" in a draft protocol since such operations contained an inherent element of risk. However, other delegations considered that the term was too ambiguous to be used in a law-enforcement instrument. Several delegations also expressed support for the proposal to expand the scope of protection to operations undertaken for the purpose of delivering emergency humanitarian assistance in situations of natural disaster. However, the need to include a mechanism of non-applicability of the draft protocol to such situations, when no risk was present, was also stressed. A few delegations were of the view that situations of natural disaster should not be included at all in the draft protocol.

While delegations acknowledged the duty of States to protect United Nations and associated personnel, the reciprocal duty of such personnel to respect and obey the law of the host countries was also emphasized.

Delegations also stressed that while a satisfactory legal framework for the protection of United Nations personnel was essential for the effective execution of United Nations operations, the success of such operations also depended on their adequate financing and support.

Some support was expressed for the continued examination of the question concerning the relationship between the international humanitarian law and the regime established under the 1994 Convention. In this connection, it was stressed that the draft protocol should not apply to operations conducted by the United Nations in or during an armed conflict since such operations would be governed by international humanitarian law.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 16 November 2005, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and of the Working Group introduced, on behalf of the Bureau, draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.11, entitled "Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel", to which was annexed the text of the Optional Protocol.

Before the adoption of the draft resolution, the representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic, Venezuela, Sudan, Colombia and Iran (Islamic Republic of) made statements in explanation of position.

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.11, without a vote.

After the adoption of the draft resolution, the representatives of Cuba, Costa Rica, Guatemala, New Zealand and Jordan made statements in explanation of position.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 83.

Measures to eliminate international terrorism

Background (Source: A/60/100)

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-eighth sessions (resolutions 52/164, 52/165, 53/108, 54/110, 55/158, 56/88, 57/27 and 58/81).

At its fifty-ninth session, the General Assembly, inter alia, noted the progress attained in the elaboration of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism during the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 and the Working Group of the Sixth Committee established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 58/81; decided that the Ad Hoc Committee should, on an expedited basis, continue to elaborate the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and to resolve the outstanding issues relating to the elaboration of the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, and 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; decided also that the Ad Hoc Committee should meet from 28 March to 1 April 2005 in order to fulfil the mandate referred to above, and that the work should continue, if necessary, during the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, within the framework of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee; and requested the Secretary-General to make a comprehensive inventory of the response of the Secretariat to terrorism as part of his report on measures to eliminate international terrorism (resolution 59/46).

At its resumed fifty-ninth session, in April 2005, the General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism; requested the Secretary-General to open the Convention for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 14 September 2005 to 31 December 2006; and called upon all States to sign and ratify, accept, approve or accede to the Convention (resolution 59/290).

See also the fifty-ninth session

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 108 at its 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 5th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 6th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 6, 7, 10 and 21 October and on 29 November 2005 respectively. Several rounds of informal consultations were also held on the draft resolution on the item.

At the 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 6 and 21 October, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Working Group introduced the report of the Ad Hoc Committee and the report of the Working Group, respectively.

Statements were made by the representatives of Switzerland, Colombia, the United Kingdom (on behalf of the European Union (the following countries aligned themselves with the statement: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Norway, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey, and Ukraine), Mongolia, Argentina (on behalf of the Rio Group), Australia, Ghana, El Salvador, Yemen (on behalf of the OIC), Uruguay, Botswana (on behalf of SADC), Viet Nam (on behalf of ASEAN), Kenya, India, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Fiji, Cuba, Pakistan and Indonesia Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Iceland, Algeria, Sri Lanka, China, the United Arab Emirates, San Marino, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burkina Faso, Belarus, Bahrain, Kuwait, Malaysia, Turkey, Brazil, the Sudan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Singapore, Tunisia, Tanzania, Sierra Leone and Japan. Maldives, Philippines, Morocco, Guatemala, Azerbaijan, Qatar, Thailand, Myanmar, Nigeria, Liechtenstein, Suriname (on behalf of CARICOM), Nepal , Jordan, Republic of the Congo, Canada, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, New Zealand, Syrian Arab Republic, Afghanistan, South Africa, Venezuela, Israel, Mali, Ethiopia, the United States of America, Armenia, Oman and Cameroon. The representative of the observer delegation of Palestine also made a statement.

Delegations condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purpose and stressed that it constituted a serious threat to international peace and security, economic development and human rights. Several delegations rejected any identification of terrorism with a single race, culture or religion and stressed the need for enhancing dialogue and broadening understanding amongst civilizations. In particular, exchanges between leaders of religious communities were encouraged to enhance inter-faith dialogue.

Several delegations reiterated that terrorism required a coordinated response, at the national, regional and international level. In this context, the central role of the United Nations in combating terrorism was underlined. Considering its unique legitimacy in legislative matters. Some delegations expressed support for the strengthening of the General Assembly's role in the context of counter-terrorism, The important role played by the Security Council, in particular through the activities carried out by its Sanctions and Counter-Terrorism Committees, was also highlighted. In this context, a proposal was made that the President of the CTC should brief the Sixth Committee on its efforts to combat terrorism. Several delegations also expressed support for fair and clear procedures for placing individuals and entities on sanctions lists and for removing them. Reference was made to Security Council resolutions relating to terrorism, including resolution 1373 (2001)and resolution 1624 (2005), on incitement of terrorism. The importance of bilateral, sub-regional and regional efforts in combating terrorism was also highlighted. Some delegations appealed to donor countries to support regional initiatives in the area of counter-terrorism and called for strengthened capacity-building measures in this area.

Delegations welcomed the adoption of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and appealed to States to become parties to and effectively implement the 13 universal counter-terrorism conventions. The importance of combating terrorism in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law was emphasized. While delegations commended the role of UNODC in assisting States in their ratification and implementation of counter-terrorism conventions, the need to further strengthen capacity-building measures in this area was highlighted. In this context, delegations called for close coordination between UNODC and CTC. A proposal was made for CTC to focus exclusively on needs assessments and UNODC on carrying out the technical assistance.

Several delegations stressed the importance of combating terrorism in a holistic manner, and, in particular, addressing its root causes. Furthermore, the link between terrorism and transnational organized crime was highlighted.

Concerning the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, delegations reiterated their call for the conclusion of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, and in this connection made reference to the 2005 World Summit Outcome. It was stressed that concluding this draft convention should be a priority and that the few remaining differences could be resolved with sufficient political will.

Some delegations expressed the view that the draft convention should contain a universally accepted definition of terrorism, which would differentiate it from the legitimate right of peoples for self-determination. Other delegations noted that the definition of acts of terrorism contained in the draft text was an appropriate basis for elaborating an appropriate operational definition of terrorism. It was stressed that the convention would be a criminal law instrument, designed to facilitate judicial cooperation, mutual assistance and extradition. A statement was made in favor of a broad scope of application of the convention, in order to include a broad range of terrorist activities. On the other hand, it was pointed out that delegations should be wary of leaving too many ambiguities in the provisions setting forth the scope of the convention.

Some delegations were also of the view that the comprehensive convention should supplement the acquis of the 13 sectoral conventions. In this connection, it was suggested that the relationship between the comprehensive convention and the existing instruments be clarified

Divergent views were expressed on whether the activities of armed forces of States should be excluded from the scope of the Convention. Some delegations expressed the view that the concept of State terrorism should be covered by the convention, while other delegations reiterated their view that the acts of States were sufficiently regulated by other norms of international law.

While some delegations welcomed the approach taken in the report of the Coordinator on the informal consultations, held in July 2005, as a basis to forge a consensus on the text, other delegations expressed concern over the Coordinator's decision to prepare a consolidated text of the draft comprehensive convention which did not contain all the proposals for draft article 18. On the other hand, the insertion of language in the draft convention setting forth the right of self-determination was welcomed by some delegations.

A specific suggestion was also made to delete paragraphs 2 and 3 from draft article 18 and to insert paragraph 81 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

Support was expressed to the Secretary-General's five point counter-terrorism strategy. However, it was stated by some delegations that although the elements and objectives identified by the Secretary-General could form a basis for developing such a strategy, the list was not an exhaustive one and required careful consideration by Member States. It was suggested that such a strategy include the following elements: completion of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism; implementation of the measures adopted by the Security Council under its relevant resolutions; and addressing of the root causes of terrorism.

While some delegations voiced support for the proposal concerning the convening of 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 manifestation; the timeliness and the successful conclusion of such a conference were questioned. Divergent views were also expressed concerning the mandate of such a conference. It was stressed that such a conference should be convened only after the successful conclusion of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism.

Delegations also made reference to other proposals, including: the establishment of an international counter-terrorism centre (Saudi Arabian proposal); the formulation of an international counter-terrorism code of conduct (Tunisian proposal); and the convening of a high-level special session of the General Assembly on cooperation against terrorism (Egyptian proposal). With regard to the proposal by Saudi Arabia, it was explained that the counter-terrorism centre was not intended to replace the UNODC or the INTERPOL, but to supplement their activities and to facilitate the exchange of information that would be submitted by States on voluntary basis. In this connection, a suggestion was made to establish a working group to study the proposal further and present recommendations to the next session of the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 29 November, the representative of Poland, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Measures to eliminate international terrorism" (A/C.6/60/L.12).

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.6/60/L.12 without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 108.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the sixty-first session (2006)

Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country

Background (Source: A/60/100)

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-ninth session, the General Assembly endorsed the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country contained in paragraph 26 of its report; requested the host country to continue to take all measures necessary to prevent any interference with the functioning of missions; noted that the Committee had conducted an initial detailed review of the implementation of the Parking Programme for Diplomatic Vehicles with a view to addressing the problems experienced by some permanent missions during the first year of the Programme and continuously ensuring its proper implementation, and that it should remain seized of the matter; noted that during the reporting period some travel restrictions previously imposed by the host country on staff of certain missions and staff members of the Secretariat of certain nationalities were removed, and requested the host country to consider removing the remaining travel restrictions, and in that regard noted the positions of affected States, of the Secretary-General and of the host country; and requested the Secretary-General to remain actively engaged in all aspects of the relations of the United Nations with the host country (resolution 59/42).

See also the fifty-ninth session

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 153 at its 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 9 November 2005.

The Chairman of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country introduced the report of the Committee (A/60/26) and the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/60/L.15.

Statements were made by the representatives of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (on behalf of the European Union: and Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Iceland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine, which aligned themselves with the statement), Cuba, the Russian Federation, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), the United States of America, Costa Rica, Botswana and Syria.

Appreciation was expressed for the continued efforts 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.
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 consistent with international law, in a fair, non-discriminatory and effective manner.

Some delegations also referred to instances of delays in the issuance of entry visas, travel restrictions, and urged the host country to resolve existing problems in accordance with the Headquarters Agreement.

The Host Country 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 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 9 November, the representative of Cyprus, on behalf of Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire and Cyprus, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country" (A/C.6/60/L.15).

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.15, without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 153.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the sixty-first session (2006)

Observer status for the Latin American Integration Association in the General Assembly

Background:

This item was included on the agenda at the request of Ecuador.

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 155 at its 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 6th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 4 and 10 October 2005.

Statements were made by the representatives of Ecuador (on behalf of the Latin American Integration Association), Argentina (on behalf of the Rio Group) and Uruguay.

The delegation of Ecuador (on behalf of the Latin American Integration Association) introduced the item and the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/60/L.3. Some delegations expressed their support for the granting of observer status to the Latin American Integration Association in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 4 October, the representative of Ecuador, on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), introduced a draft resolution entitled "Observer status for the Latin American Integration Association in the General Assembly" (A/C.6/60/L.3).

At its 6th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 10 October, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.3 without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of the agenda item.

Observer status for the Common Fund for Commodities in the General Assembly

Background:

This item was included on the agenda at the request of the United Republic of Tanzania.

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 6th meetings, on 4 and 10 October 2005 respectively.

Statements were made by the representatives of Tanzania (on behalf of the Common Fund for Commodities) and Kenya.

The delegation of Tanzania (on behalf of the Common Fund for Commodities) introduced the item and the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/60/L.2 and announced that Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Spain, Uganda and the United Kingdom had joined as sponsors of the draft resolution. Support was expressed for the granting of observer status to the Common Fund for Commodities in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 4 October, the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, on behalf of Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Spain, Uganda, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United Republic of Tanzania, subsequently joined by Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Germany, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea and the Sudan, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Observer status for the Common Fund for Commodities in the General Assembly" (A/C.6/60/L.2).

At its 6th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 10 October, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.2 without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of the agenda item.

Observer status for the Hague Conference on Private International Law in the General Assembly

Background:

This item was included on the agenda at the request of the Netherlands.

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 158 at its 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 28 October and 2 November 2005, respectively.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 28 October 2005, the representative of the Netherlands, on behalf of Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Lithuania, Malta, Morocco, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, subsequently joined by China, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and Sweden, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Observer status for the Hague Conference on Private International Law in the General Assembly" (A/C.6/60/L.9).

At its 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 2 November 2005, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.9 without a vote (see para. 7).

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 158.

Observer status for the Ibero-America Conference in the General Assembly

Background:

This item was included on the agenda at the request of Spain.

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, on 2 and 3 November 2005, respectively.

Statements were made by the delegations of Spain and Costa Rica. Support was expressed for the granting of observer status to the Ibero-American Conference in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 3 November, the representative of Spain, on behalf of Andorra, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), introduced a draft resolution entitled "Observer status for the Ibero-American Conference in the General Assembly" (A/C.6/60/L.10).

At its 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 3 November, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/60/L.10 without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 159.

Created and maintained by:
Codification Division
Office of Legal Affairs
United Nations
+1 (212) 963-5332

Copyright (c) 2005
United Nations