Legal Committee, Continuing Long-Standing Tradition, Approves without Vote Five Resolutions, as It Concludes its Seventieth Session
Adhering to its long-standing tradition, the Sixth Committee (Legal) today approved without a vote five draft resolutions and adopted a draft decision on its provisional programme of work for 2016, as it concluded its substantive work for the seventieth session of the General Assembly.
Despite significant discussion, said the representative of Canada as he introduced the draft resolution on measures to eliminate international terrorism, delegations had not been able to reach consensus on any of the proposals. However, further deliberations were requested, with the resolution calling for the Sixth Committee to establish a working group aimed at finalizing the process on the draft comprehensive convention.
Eden Charles (Trinadad and Tobago), Chair of the Sixth Committee, referring to a terrorist attack that had occurred that day in Mali, again expressed regret at the Committee’s inability to reach agreement on the draft comprehensive convention. Echoing that, a number of speakers also underscored that recent terrorist attacks clearly demonstrated the seriousness of the matter.
Indeed, France’s representative, while expressing gratitude to delegations for their support after the recent attacks in Paris, also noted the number of countries in recent months, including Mali that morning, which had been attacked by terrorists. He stressed that action by the international community to combat terrorism would be effective only if common definitions with respect to the topic were consensual and unambiguous.
The delegate of Peru, introducing the draft resolution on the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-seventh session, said the resolution reflected the matter of the Commission holding part of its sixty-eighth session in New York in 2016, which according to the Commission was not feasible.
On that matter, the Committee Secretary pointed out that the requested additional two weeks of meetings in 2016 would entail requirements in the amount of $232,100, which could not be absolved with existing resources, a point received with disappointment and regret by a number of delegations.
Other texts approved included those on criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission. By the text, the Assembly would, among other things, request the Secretary-General to improve reporting methods and expand the scope of reporting.
The Committee also approved without a vote a resolution on the rule of law at the national and international levels. By that text, the Assembly would invite Member States to focus their comments during the upcoming Sixth Committee debate on the subtopics: “Sharing national practices of States in the implementation of multilateral treaties” and “Practical measures to facilitate access to justice for all, including for the poorest and most vulnerable”.
The draft resolution on the Committee on relations with the host country was also approved without a vote. Among other things, the Assembly would request the host country to consider removing the remaining travel restrictions imposed on staff of certain missions and Secretariat staff of certain nationalities. It would, as well, acknowledge progress made in the provision of suitable banking services to all permanent missions.
The Committee deferred two requests for Observer status to the seventy-first session of the General Assembly. It also approved a draft decision containing its provisional programme of work as proposed by the Bureau for the seventy-first session of the General Assembly.
Also speaking were representatives of Pakistan, Mexico, India, Russian Federation, Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan and Guinea. A representative of the European Union spoke, as well.
Background
The Sixth Committee (Legal) today concluded its current session, hearing introductions and taking action on six draft texts.
The draft resolutions included: Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission (document A/C.6/70/L.17); report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-seventh session (document A/C.6/70/L.13); the rule of law at the national and international levels (document A/C.6/70/L.16); Measures to eliminate international terrorism (document A/C.6/70/L.15); report of the Committee on relations with the host country (document A/C.6/70/L.14); and a draft decision on Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/C.6/70/L.18).
The Committee also further considered Observer status for the Cooperation Council of Turkic-speaking States in the General Assembly and Observer status for the Eurasian Economic Union in the General Assembly, and addressed its remaining agenda items, namely programme planning, and election of the officers of the main committees.
Action on Draft Texts and Observer Status Requests
The representative of Pakistan introduced the draft resolution on Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission (document A/C.6/70/L.17). While the text largely reiterated General Assembly resolution 69/114 of 10 December 2014, the preamble and operative part had been substantially strengthened. By the new text the Assembly would, among other things, request the Secretary-General to improve reporting methods and expand the scope of reporting by providing information on instances where credible allegations had been referred, as well as information received on all referrals since 1 July 2007, among other things.
The draft resolution was then approved without a vote.
The representative of Peru then introduced the draft resolution on the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-seventh session (document A/C.6/70/L.13). He called attention to several sections, including operative paragraphs 8 to 12 which he said reflect as comprehensively as possible the way in which the Commission had dealt with the question of holding part of its session in New York.
The Secretary of the Committee, speaking according to rule of procedure number 153, pointed out that under operative paragraph 17 of the resolution, the General Assembly would take note of paragraph 309 of the Commission’s report and decide that the next session of the Commission shall be held at the United Nations Office at Geneva for a period of 12 weeks. In that regard, the additional two weeks of meetings in 2016, if the resolution was adopted, would require an additional $232,100 under section 8 of the proposed programme budget for the biennium not foreseen.
The representative of the European Union, speaking in explanation of position before action, said that, as expressed during negotiations, he was supportive of the Commission meeting for 12 weeks in 2016. However, he expressed disappointment not only by the full costs associated with holding a 12-week session, but that the costs had not been foreseen or incorporated in the budget of the Office of Legal Affairs for 2016 to 2017. Adoption of the resolution should in no way prejudge discussion in the Fifth Committee of the Secretary-General’s budget for the 2016-2017 biennium.
The representative of Canada expressed support for the substance of the resolution, but noted with regret the programme budget implication.
The draft resolution was then approved without a vote.
The representative of Mexico introduced the draft resolution on the rule of law at the national and international levels (document A/C.6/70/L.16). By that text, the Assembly, among other things, would invite Member States to focus their comments during the upcoming Sixth Committee debate, under that agenda item, on the subtopics: “Sharing national practices of States in the implementation of multilateral treaties” and “Practical measures to facilitate access to justice for all, including for the poorest and most vulnerable”.
The draft resolution was then approved without a vote.
The representative of Canada, speaking in explanation of position after action, said he regretted that his proposal to include the concept of “rule of law cultures” had not been agreed upon by States. It would have made clear that all persons were equal before the law. The concept was to be found in the rules of international law and had existed long before those rules. Furthermore, he held that its constituent elements were necessary to sustainable development, peace and security.
The representative of Canada introducing the draft resolution on measures to eliminate international terrorism (document A/C.6/70/L.15) acknowledged that despite significant discussion, delegations had not been able to arrive at a consensus position on any of the proposals. Many had expressed a desire to return to the technically updated original Coordinator’s draft. He drew attention to operative paragraph 24 which would have the the Sixth Committee at the Assembly’s seventy-first session establish a working group with a view to finalizing the process on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism.
The representative of India, speaking in explanation of position before action, welcomed the Bureau’s proposal to hold formal and informal intersessional meetings on the topic, underscoring the need to put an end to terrorism.
The Russian Federation’s representative said that while the draft text had been around for more than a year, he had not seen any changes apart from certain technical updates. He expressed hope that the Committee would change the situation and commit to an effective and appropriate response to the threat of terrorism.
The representative of France thanked delegations for their gestures of friendship and support after the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. A number of countries in recent months, including Mali today, had been attacked by terrorists, demonstrating the seriousness of the matter. Action by the international community to combat terrorism would only be effective if there were common definitions that were consensual and unambiguous. He said he was in favour of continuing discussions with legal experts towards removing ambiguity from the draft as a whole and allowing for a proper legal framework that covered all aspects of the question.
The draft resolution was then approved without a vote.
The representative of Cyprus, introducing the draft resolution on the report of the Committee on relations with the host country (document A/C.6/70/L.14), said that the draft endorsed the recommendations and conclusions in that report. The Assembly, among other things, would request the host country to consider removing the remaining travel restrictions imposed on staff of certain missions and Secretariat staff of certain nationalities. It would also note the Committee’s anticipation that the host country would continue to enhance its efforts to ensure the issuance of entry visas to representatives of Member States and in a timely manner. As well it would acknowledge progress made with regards to the provision of suitable banking services to all permanent missions.
The draft resolution was then approved without a vote.
The Committee then reverted to consideration of the request for Observer status for the Cooperation Council of Turkic-speaking States in the General Assembly.
The representative of Kazakhstan requested deferral of the agenda item to the Assembly’s next session. Representatives of Turkey, Cyprus and Armenia expressed thanks to Kazakhstan’s representative and to the Committee Chair for their efforts in advancing deliberations on the item.
The Committee then recommended to the Assembly that it defer a decision on that Observer status request until its seventy-first session.
The Committee then reverted to consideration of the request for Observer status for the Eurasian Economic Union in the General Assembly.
The representative of Belarus, speaking in explanation of position before action, said that, as the country currently holding the presidency of the Eurasian Economic Union, his country had held almost daily consultations with interested parties in the hope of achieving a consensus on the draft text. No contradictions had been found regarding the Union meeting the criteria established in resolution 49/246. The Union was an international intergovernmental organization founded on the basis of a treaty. Its aims fully corresponded to issues of interest to the General Assembly in the areas of sustainable development, international trade and ecology among others. The organization’s constituent treaty noted the strict adherence of its members to the United Nations Charter. In that light, he requested a re-examination of the draft resolution to see whether there were comments from delegations that would impede its approval.
The representatives of Kyrgyzstan and Armenia aligned with the comments of the representative of Belarus, with the latter adding his regret that certain delegations had focused on a single member country of the Union to block the vote, rather than whether the organization met the requirements.
The representative of Azerbaijan said her country’s position had been explained in the earlier debate on the issue on 19 October. She respected the sovereign right of States to establish relations as they wished and noted that the Union’s founding document was in line with requirements. However, objection was in regards to the presence of Armenia as member; that country had violated her country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, in contradiction to the Charter. Therefore, she said, she was not in a position to support observer status for the Eurasian Economic Union.
The representative of the Russian Federation said that he hoped that delegations would take into account that the Union was in compliance with the requirements of resolution 49/426 and that a consensus decision would be possible.
The representative of Armenia strongly rejected the allegations of Azerbaijan, noting that what was missing from Azerbaijan’s statement was a single legal argument. He called on the delegation concerned to refrain from politicizing the Committee and to speak only to the substance of important topics.
The representative of Turkey noted that the earlier debate on the topic had shown that there was no consensus on the matter. Furthermore, the Eurasian Economic Union was a young organization, whose founding document had only come into force in January 2015. That document was long and had many addenda and protocols. Her delegation required more time to examine it.
The representative of Azerbaijan said that the occupation of her country was not a political, but a legal issue, as it contravened the Charter. She reminded the delegate of Armenia that the Security Council had adopted four resolutions recognizing Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and said it was remarkable that the representative of the occupying country denied seizing the territory of Azerbaijan.
The Chair of the Sixth Committee said that in light of the opposition expressed, more time for consultations was required and the sponsors of the draft resolution would accept deferral of a decision on the proposal to the seventy-first session.
The Sixth Committee then decided to recommend to the General Assembly to defer a decision on the request for Observer status for the Eurasian Economic Union in the General Assembly to its seventy-first session.
The representative of Belarus, speaking in explanation of position after action, noted that consensus decisions were the appropriate method for approving resolutions on legal questions and that he was loath to depart from that principle. Therefore, he would refrain from initiating a vote on the draft resolution. However, he stressed that the de facto “veto” that every delegation of the Committee had entailed additional responsibility, particularly with regard to the future work of the Committee. He also said he was concerned that issues not related to the Committee’s mandate were being used to block Observer status for the Eurasian Economic Union, which set a precedent no less negative than requiring a vote. He hoped that such a situation would be a single incident in the Committee’s work and not be reflected in its future work.
The Sixth Committee then reverted to consideration of the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. The Chair pointed out that the Bureau had prepared a final version of the provisional programme of work for the Sixth Committee during its seventy-first session, which had been issued as draft decision A/C.6/70/L.18.
He also specified that the provisional programme would specifically anticipate that the holding of debates on the International Criminal Court and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia reports in the General Assembly on 31 October and 9 November 2016 respectively. No meetings of the Committee would be scheduled for those time slots to allow delegates opportunity to participate. He also said he hoped that arrangements made with the presidency of the Criminal Court would establish a precedent for greater collaboration and coordination between the programme of work of the Committee and debates being held elsewhere.
The representative of Guinea asked that the French text be amended to reflect the seventy-first instead of the seventieth session with respect to the provisional programme of work.
The draft decision was then approved without a vote.
Programme Planning and Procedural Matters
The Committee Chair noted that there were currently no reports under the item, after which the Committee decided to conclude consideration of it.
Turning to the item on the election of officers of the Main Committees, the Chair said that in accordance with the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, all Main Committees should elect a chair at least three months before the opening of the session. He asked delegations to recall that, in keeping with the interim arrangement of the pattern for the rotation of Main Committee chairs, the Chair of the Sixth Committee for the seventy-first session would come from the Group of Western European and other States. The full Bureau should similarly be elected three months in advance of the next session.
He noted that the Committee would meet one more time during the present Assembly session, approximately in June 2016 to elect the Bureau for the seventy-first session. Regional groups should hold consultations to ensure that the Committee would be in a position to elect its next Chair, three Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur. After addressing certain administrative matters, he expressed thanks to the Committee, the Bureau, the Secretariat for their work and all officers and personnel who had facilitated the Committee’s work.
The meeting was then adjourned.