Sixth Committee (Legal) — 71st session

Measures to eliminate international terrorism (Agenda item 108)

«»

Documentation

Summary of work

Background (source: A/71/100)

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, 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 considered the item at its thirty-first session, biennially from its thirty-second to forty-eighth sessions and annually thereafter, changing its title from “Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental freedoms, and study of the underlying causes of those forms of terrorism and acts of violence which lie in misery, frustration, grievance and despair and which cause some people to sacrifice human lives, including their own, in an attempt to effect radical changes” to “Measures to eliminate international terrorism” at its forty-sixth session (resolutions 31/102, 32/147, 34/145, 36/109, 38/130, 40/61, 42/159, 44/29, 46/51, 49/60, 50/53, 51/210, 52/164, 52/165, 53/108, 54/109, 54/110, 55/158, 56/88, 57/27, 58/81, 59/46, 59/290, 60/43, 61/40, 62/71, 63/129, 64/118, 65/34, 66/105, 67/99, 68/119, 69/127 and 70/120 and decision 48/411).

At its forty-ninth session, the General Assembly approved the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (resolution 49/60).

At its fiftieth session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit an annual report on the implementation of paragraph 10 of the Declaration (resolution 50/53).

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). Through the work of the Committee, the Assembly has so far adopted three counter-terrorism instruments.

At its seventieth session, the General Assembly decided to recommend that the Sixth Committee, at the seventy-first session of the Assembly, establish a working group with a view to finalizing the process on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism as well as discussions on the item included in its agenda by resolution 54/110 concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations (resolution 70/120).

Consideration at the seventy-first session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 31st and 33rd meetings, on 3, 4 and 5 October and on 4 and 11 November 2016 (A/C.6/71/SR.1, 2, 3, 4, 31 and 33).

For its consideration of the item, the Committee had before it the report of the Secretary-General (A/71/182, Add.1 and Add.2).

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 70/120 of 14 December 2015, at its 1st meeting, on 3 October, the Committee established a working group with a view to finalizing the process on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, as well as discussions on the item included in its agenda by General Assembly resolution 54/110 concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations. The Working Group was open to all States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Working Group held three meetings, as well as informal consultations, on 17 and 20 October and on 1 November. At its 31st meeting, on 4 November, the Committee heard and took note of the oral report by the Chair of the Working Group on the work of the Working Group and on the results of the informal consultations held during the current session (see A/C.6/71/SR.31).

During the general debate, statements were made by the representatives of the Dominican Republic (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)), South Africa (on behalf of the African Group), Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), the European Union [in English], also on behalf of its member States (the candidate countries the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Albania, the country of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia aligned themselves with the statement), Canada [in English], also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand (CANZ), Armenia (on behalf of the member States of the Collective Security Treaty Organization), the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)), Cuba, Switzerland, Qatar, Brazil, Turkey, Libya, El Salvador, Peru, the Sudan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Thailand, Indonesia, Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, the United Arab Emirates [in English], Liechtenstein, Pakistan, Ukraine, the Philippines, Lebanon, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Colombia, the Maldives, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Kuwait, Zambia, Japan, the United States of America, Sri Lanka, the Russian Federation, Kenya, Eritrea, Panama, Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), China [in English], Georgia, Singapore, Myanmar, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Morocco, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Bahrain, the Syrian Arab Republic, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Uganda, Algeria, India, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Iceland, Norway, Mexico, the Congo, Djibouti, the Republic of Korea, Senegal, Jordan, Mongolia, Mauritius, Madagascar, Iran (Islamic Republic of) and Nepal. The permanent observer for the Holy See and the permanent observer for the State of Palestine made statements. The observer for the International Committee of the Red Cross made a statement.

In their general statements, delegations generally reaffirmed their unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Terrorism was characterized by many delegations as a flagrant breach of international law and a threat to international peace and security. It was also underlined that, regardless of the considerations or factors invoked by the perpetrators, terrorist acts were unjustifiable. In the fight against terrorism, several delegations highlighted the need for strict observance of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, as well as due process and respect for the rule of law.

The human suffering caused by terrorism was highlighted by several delegations, and many referred to recent and past examples of terrorist acts, expressing sympathy for the victims. More generally, the economic consequences of terrorism in terms of development and economic stability were underlined, as well as other potential consequences such as destruction or looting of cultural heritage and the worsening of the refugee crisis. Some delegations highlighted the high number of children recruited for, involved in, or victims of terrorism-related activities. It was also observed that violence against women and curtailment of their rights, as well as their recruitment for extremist purposes, had become intentional strategies of terrorist groups.

As to the forms and manifestations of terrorism, a number of delegations expressed the view that terrorism may be committed by States as well as individuals, including by the use of military force. Some delegations further stressed that terrorism should not be equated with the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation. It was also underlined by several delegations that terrorism should not be associated with any religion, culture, ethnicity, race, nationality or civilization. It was noted that, while there was indeed consensus in the international community as to this point, widespread extreme right-wing political movements throughout the world had fostered such ideas and had not been sufficiently challenged. In this respect, several delegations underlined the need to address questions relating to incitement, hate speech and unjust defamation of certain religions, as well as the importance of rejecting stereotypes, xenophobia and prejudice. Some delegations expressed their firm opposition at the unilateral establishment of lists of countries involved with terrorism, a practice which was viewed by them as unacceptable and contrary to international law. In this regard, the risk of politicizing the discourse on terrorism and its employ as a pretext against certain countries was mentioned by a number of delegations. Furthermore, some delegations noted the increase in the number of letters submitted to the Security Council under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations seeking to justify resort to military action in the context of counter-terrorism, and reaffirmed the need for such action to be in compliance with the Charter itself.

Furthermore, several delegations highlighted the concern posed by the phenomenon of “foreign terrorist fighters” and the use of social media and the Internet by terrorist organizations to recruit new adherents and spread propaganda.

As to the causes of terrorism, many delegations highlighted the need to consider the underlying economic and political conditions from which terrorism arises. It was underscored that international and internal conflict, foreign occupation, State failure, as well as the lack of development, are important root causes of terrorism. It was further pointed out that linkage between terrorism, radicalism and violent extremism needed to be fully understood and not necessarily conflated, because violent extremism arising from, for example, racism or xenophobia was not always related to terrorism. Furthermore, some delegations expressed concern at the nexus between transnational organized crime and terrorism, while other delegations expressed the view that the issues should be understood and addressed separately. In this regard, many delegations stressed the need to address the question of the paying of ransom money, underlying that it constitutes one of the key sources of income for terrorist groups.

International frameworks of cooperation, including the sharing of information and best practices, were mentioned as important tools in combating international terrorism. A number of delegations reaffirmed their support for relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 1373 (2001), 1540 (2004), 1624 (2005), 2056 (2012), 2133 (2014), 2170 (2014), 2178 (2014), 2198 (2015), 2199 (2015), 2214 (2015) and 2253 (2015). In particular, the importance of the recently adopted Security Council resolution 2309 (2016) of 22 September 2016 on aviation security was underlined by some delegations.

The need to take a holistic, whole-of-society approach when countering terrorism was mentioned. Furthermore, the view was advanced that a lack of integration in society is one of the driving factors of terrorism, so that societal unity must be fostered. Some delegations underlined the importance of education to peace, tolerance and mutual understanding among peoples and civilizations.

Several delegations called for all States to fulfil applicable international obligations to prevent the organization, instigation or financing of terrorism.

Delegations set out their own ratification and/or accession to the universal and regional instruments to counter terrorism, and several delegations called upon all States to ratify or accede to them, as well as to take the necessary measures to implement them domestically.

Several delegations reported on implementation measures, including legislative, taken domestically, sub-regionally and regionally to counter terrorism. Some delegations highlighted the importance of the right to privacy.

On the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, several delegations welcomed the fifth biennial review process conducted in 2016; reconfirmed the central role of the Strategy; indicated their commitment to implementing the Strategy as a coordinated response to counter terrorism, underlining the importance of the full implementation of all four pillars of the Strategy in a balanced way; and commended the consensus outcome of the review process. Several delegations restated that it was the primary responsibility of Member States to implement the Strategy. The view was also expressed that stronger language on countering violent extremism in the Strategy would have been welcome. It was further pointed out that the Strategy should be open for re-examination on a regular basis.

A number of delegations stressed the duplication of the work of the Sixth Committee with the Plenary of the General Assembly in those years when the Strategy was being reviewed, and suggested that this agenda item be examined on a biennial basis (alternating with those years when the Strategy was under examination). The view was also expressed that the Strategy should be reviewed annually given the complexity in countering terrorism.

Delegations commended the United Nations, and urged its increased focus on assisting Member States in implementing counter-terrorism policies at the national and regional levels. The importance of capacity building activities for counter-terrorism in developing countries was underlined by some delegations. A number of delegations approved of the work of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF) in capacity-building and policy support. Several delegations expressed their appreciation for the continued work of the United Nations Centre for Counter-Terrorism (UNCCT). A number of delegations also expressed their continuing support for the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) given this body’s important cooperation and expertise in assisting States to combat international terrorism. Some delegations welcomed the work of the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in countering terrorism. Delegations also underlined the important role played by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

A number of delegations underlined the importance of the various sanctions regimes including the importance of the 1267/1989 and 1540 Sanctions Committees. Support was expressed for the continuing and strengthened implementation of fair and clear procedures by the sanctions committees. Support for the role of the Ombudsperson was also expressed and a desire was set out for the position to be made permanent and to apply to all Security Council sanctions regimes.

Several delegations welcomed the report of the Secretary-General on this item (A/71/182, Add.1 and Add.2) and the Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism presented by the Secretary-General in 2016 (A/70/674). Support was also given by some delegations for the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum, highlighting its activities and its development of practical measures to further implement the United Nations counter-terrorism framework, including on countering violent extremism.

Delegations referred to the increase in terrorist activities and reiterated the importance of reaching agreement on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and conclude work without further delay. To this end, several delegations called on all States to show flexibility and rise above their differences to overcome the last outstanding challenges. Some delegations remained committed to the draft convention’s successful conclusion and expressed regret that the draft convention had so far eluded the international community, despite the appeal contained in the World Summit Outcome document (General Assembly resolution 60/1). It was also recalled that finalization of the draft convention was a key element of the Strategy and some delegations observed that its conclusion would send a clear message on the resolve of the international community to combat this scourge. The view was also expressed that sending a united and unambiguous signal when it comes to terrorism was essential in order not to risk progress already made in this area.

Several delegations emphasized that the draft convention would enhance and fill the lacunae in the existing legal framework and some delegations stressed that it would provide a harmonized definition of terrorism. As such, it would strengthen the international community’s response to terrorism. In this regard, it was stressed by several delegations that any definition included in the draft convention should distinguish terrorism from the legitimate struggle of peoples in the exercise of their right to self-determination from foreign occupation or colonial domination. It was also observed that such a definition should be in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. The view was further expressed that any definition would need to include all forms and manifestations of terror, including State terrorism, while the opposing viewpoint that no reference to “State terrorism” should be included was also voiced. Furthermore, the need to address, in the draft convention, issues that fell within the ambit of international humanitarian law in international humanitarian law language was emphasized. The need to regulate through a provision in the draft convention its relationship with international humanitarian law in order to preserve the integrity and rationale of this latter legal framework was also underlined.

While some delegations recalled their support for the proposal made by the Coordinator at the 2007 session of the Ad Hoc Committee, which was now a proposal of the Bureau, some other delegations reiterated their preference for earlier proposals relating to the scope of the draft convention. The importance of a consensus-based conclusion of the draft convention was also emphasized.

With regard to the various proposals to rationalize work on this agenda item, some delegations questioned how this would affect efforts on the draft convention and stressed that its finalization remained a priority. It was, however, also suggested that the time had come to acknowledge that the Committee is unable to fulfill this task and to take the item off the agenda of the Sixth Committee so as to avoid duplication of work, in particular in light of the discussions on the Strategy. The view was nevertheless also expressed that continued efforts aimed at bridging the different viewpoints would result in ultimate success.

Several delegations reconfirmed their support for the proposal to convene a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations, with some delegations stating that the proposal should be given serious consideration. The view was expressed that the conference should be convened without delay to serve as a platform to address the current challenges facing global counter-terrorism efforts, including the threat of violent extremism. The point was also made that the conference would contribute to finalizing the outstanding issues with respect to the draft convention. Some delegations stressed that both initiatives would strengthen the rule of law in the countering of terrorism through providing a clear legal regime and a more coherent response of the international community. While some delegation noted the potential usefulness of a conference, they restated their view that the conference should not be a prelude to the finalization of the text of the draft convention.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 33rd meeting, on 11 November, the representative of Canada, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Measures to eliminate international terrorism” (A/C.6/71/L.24). At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/71/L.24 without a vote.

By the terms of the resolution, the General Assembly would, among other things, decide to recommend that the Sixth Committee, at the seventy-second session of the General Assembly, establish a working group with a view to finalizing the process on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism as well as discussions on the item included in its agenda by Assembly resolution 54/110, while encouraging all Member States to redouble their efforts during the intersessional period towards resolving any outstanding issues.

Subsequent action taken by the General Assembly

This agenda item will be considered at the seventy-second session (2017).

Related links

 

Quick Links

Key Documents

Resources