The General
Assembly continued to consider the item during the 1990's, most
recently in resolution 53/98 of 8 December 1998 in which it decided
to establish an open-ended Working
Group of the Sixth Committee to consider outstanding substantive
issues related to the draft articles. The Assembly also invited
the International Law Commission to present any preliminary comments
it may have regarding outstanding substantive consultations held
pursuant to General Assembly decision 48/413 of 9 December 1993
and taking into account the recent developments of State practice
and other factors related to the issue since the adoption of the
draft articles, in order to facilitate the task of the Working Group.
At its fifty-first
session, the Commission established a Working Group on the topic
and entrusted it with the task of preparing preliminary comments
as requested by General Assembly resolution 53/98. The Commission
took note of the report
of the Working Group and decided to annex it to the report
of the Commission to the General Assembly. It also adopted the
suggestions of the Working Group contained in its report and dealing
with the following five areas: 1) Concept of State for purpose of
immunity; 2) Criteria for determining the commercial character of
a contract or transaction; 3) Concept of a State enterprise or other
entity in relation to commercial transactions; 4) Contracts of employment
and 5) Measures of constraint against State property.
At its second
meeting on 27 September 1999, the Sixth Committee elected Mr. Gerhard
Hafner as Chariman of the open-ended Working Group on jurisdictional
immunities of States and their property, established by resolution
53/98. The working group held four meetings between 8 and 9 November
1999.
The Chaiman
of the Working Group presented his report (A/C.6/54/L.12)
on the work of the Working Group to the Sixth Committee at its 30th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting on 12 November 1999.
Consideration
by the Sixth Committee
The Sixth
Committee considered the item at its 36th (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 19 November 1999. It had before it the report of the
Chairman of the Working Group (A/C.6/54/L.12).
Statements were made by the representatives of Mexico (on behalf
of the Rio Group), Japan, Myanmar, Burkina Faso, the United Kingdom,
Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, France, the Netherlands
and South Africa.
All delegations
praised the work accomplished by the International Law Commission
on the topic at its recent session. Support was expressed for the
adoption of a convention on the topic. In terms of this view, only
through the binding norms of a convention could the law of State
immunity acquire the required measure of uniformity, certainty and
precision which the various national regimes in this area did not
provide.
Others spoke
in favour of the adoption of a model law on the topic, and some
suggested that the draft be referred back to the International Law
Commission for the elaboration of such a model law.
Action
taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 36th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 19 November 1999, the representative of Japan and Coordinator
of the informal consultations introduced a draft resolution entitled
"Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their
property" (A/C.6/54/L.19 and Corr.1). At the same meeting,
the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.19 without a vote.
This agenda
item was subsequently considered at the fifty-fifth
session (2000)
Agenda item 153
United
Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination
and Wider Appreciation of International Law
The Sixth Committee
considered the item at its 30th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
and 36th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meetings, held on 12 and 19 November 1999. The Committee had before
it the Secretary-General's report (A/54/515).
Statements were made by the representatives of Ghana, Finland (on
behalf of the European Union), the Republic of Korea, Malaysia (on
behalf of ASEAN), Singapore, Niger, Cyprus and the Solomon Islands.
All speakers expressed
appreciation for the United Nations Programme of Assistance, and
the report of the Secretary-General on the item, and stressed the
need for continued support and expansion of the Programme. The fellowship
programmes under the United Nations Programme of Assistance were
highlighted by several speakers. One speaker proposed that funds
be made available to the Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe Memorial Fellowship
on the Law of the Sea to increase the number of fellowships awarded
to more than one per year. It was also urged that in those
instances where selected fellows are unable to take up their fellowships
that immediate action be taken to select a replacement. Appreciation
was expressed for the establishment of the United Nations Audiovisual
Library in International Law, and attention was drawn to the up-to-date
list of tapes attached as an annex to the Secretary-General's report.
One speaker emphasized the importance of the training activities
of UNCITRAL under the Programme. Several speakers pointed to the
value of distributing information on international law via the Internet,
and voiced the need to increase these efforts. One speaker suggested
that web sites also target general audiences and not just the "legal
elite".
Action
taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 36th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 19 November 1999, the representative of Ghana introduced
a draft resolution, which it had proposed, entitled "United
Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination
and Wider Appreciation of International Law" (A/C.6/54/L.14
and Corr.1). At the same meeting, the representative of the Solomon
Islands made a statement to explain its position before the adoption
of the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted
draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.14 and Corr.1, without a vote.
This agenda
item was subsequently considered at the fifty-sixth
session (2001)
Agenda item 154
United
Nations Decade of International Law
The Sixth
Committee considered the item at its 8th (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
9th (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
and 10th (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meetings, held from 18 to 19 October 1999. It had before it the
final
report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Decade
of International Law, as well as the report
on the outcome of the of the celebration of the centennial of
the First International Peace Conference held at The Hague in 1899.
At the 8th meeting, the Netherlands introduced the report on the
outcome of the celebrations of the centennial of the First International
Peace Conference (A/54/381). Statements were made by the representatives
of the Netherlands, Finland (on behalf of the EU and associated
countries), Mexico (on behalf of the Rio Group), the Republic of
Korea, Japan, Ecuador, Algeria, the Philippines, Jamaica, Cyprus,
San Marino, Costa Rica, Brazil, Russian Federation, Dem. People's
Rep. of Korea, Norway, China, New Zealand, Cote d'Ivoire, Solomon
Islands and observer for, Malaysia (on behalf of ASEAN), India,
Hungary, Croatia, Mozambique, Nepal, Trinidad and Tobago, Haiti,
Ukraine, Iraq, Guatemala, Burkina Faso, Bangladesh, Bolivia, South
Africa and Belarus. The observers of the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)
made statements. Delegations expressed their appreciation for both
reports, and emphasized the success of the Decade in attaining its
goals.
With regard to the promotion of the acceptance of and respect
for the principles of international law, specific reference
was made to several advances during the Decade, including the establishment
of the international criminal tribunals, as well as the adoption
of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well
as to various efforts by States at the national level. An updated
report concerning WIPO activities in this field was also presented.
The importance of strict compliance with the principles of international
law by all States, irrespective of their size and power, was underscored.
As to the encouragement of the teaching, study, dissemination
and wider appreciation of international law, it was noted that
extremely valuable work had been done under the United Nations Programme
of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation
of International Law. Special recognition was given to the UN Internet
services. Certain delegations expressed appreciation for the efforts
by the Secretariat to establish an electronic database for treaties
deposited under Article 102 of the Charter. The point was made that
free on-line access to the United Nations Treaty Collection should
be made available for developing countries and that allocation of
specific budgetary resources for treaty translation would be needed.
Awareness of international law by the general public was considered
vital for the establishment of the rule of law. A number of delegations
felt that much remained to be done. In particular, a delegation
expressed regret that little progress was achieved in the area of
wide dissemination of international law to public at large.
The role of the International Law Commission in the progressive
development of international law and its codification was recognized,
and the hope was expressed that the Commission would continue adjusting
its working methods and procedural preferences to the practical
demands of changing times. It was recalled that a wide range of
international legal instruments were adopted during the Decade.
In the view of a delegation, the development of the international
legal framework for arms control had not advanced at the desired
pace and the Sixth Committee was called upon to give increased attention
to legal aspects of disarmament and arms control. A further view
was expressed that priority should be given to promoting compliance
with existing international humanitarian law treaties rather than
adopting a number of new instruments. The importance of the adoption
of regional instruments was also underscored. The hope was expressed
that the universal participation of States in negotiating international
instruments would be achieved.
With regard to the peaceful settlement of disputes, reference
was made to the increased confidence that has been shown in the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the principal judicial organ
of the United Nations. Most delegations stressed the need for the
ICJ to be provided with the adequate human and financial resources
to carry out its activities. It was also noted that the Decade had
witnessed the establishment of the International Tribunal for the
Law of the Sea, and the two international criminal tribunals as
well as the adoption of the Rome Statute. It was stated that an
emphasis should be placed on existing mechanisms in this field,
including regional mechanisms. A view was expressed that an universal
instrument in the area of dispute settlement should be elaborated
so as to reflect new international realities. San Marino informed
the Committee of the establishment of a Court of Arbitration and
hoped that it would become an internationally recognized mechanism
for settlement of commercial and political disputes. The observer
for the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) outlined the recent
activities of the PCA.
Appreciation was expressed to the Governments of the Netherlands
and the Russian Federation for hosting the Centennial celebrations.
It was observed that the discussions held in The Hague and St. Petersburg
greatly contributed to advancing the themes of the First Peace Conference
and served as a useful basis for carrying the achievements of the
Decade into the next century.
It was also noted that the lead of the Secretary-General
and contribution of the Office of Legal Affairs had been indispensable
for the Decade. Support was expressed for continuing the various
programmes established during the Decade into the next century.
Working
Group on the United Nations Decade of International Law
The General Assembly, in its resolution 53/100, had requested
the Working Group on the United Nations Decade of International
Law to continue its work at the fifty-fourth session in accordance
with its mandate and methods of work. Pursuant to that request,
the Sixth Committee, at its 2nd meeting, on 27 September, elected
Mrs. Socorro Flores (Mexico) Chairperson of the Working Group for
the session. The Working Group held 12 meetings from 18 October
to 10 November 1999, at which time it considered proposals for several
draft resolutions related to the United Nations Decade. At the 33rd
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting of the Sixth Committee, held on 15 November 1999, the Chairperson
of the Working Group presented an oral report on the work accomplished
by the Working Group.
Action
taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 33rd
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 15 November 1999, the Chairperson of the Working Group
introduced a draft resolution entitled "Outcome of the action
dedicated to the 1999 centennial of the first International Peace
Conference" (A/C.6/54/L.9) and made an oral revision. At the
same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.9,
as orally revised without a vote.
At the 33rd
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 15 November 1999, the Chairperson of the Working Group
introduced a draft resolution entitled "United Nations Decade
of International Law" (A/C.6/54/L.10) and made an oral revision.
At the same meeting, the representative of Cameroon submitted an
amendment (A/C.6/54/L.18) to draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.10, and
subsequently withdrew the proposed amendment. The representatives
of Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria and Solomon Islands made statements in
explanation of their respective positions before action was taken
on the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted
draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.10 as orally revised without a vote.
Plenary
meeting of the General Assembly marking the end of the United Nations
Decade of International Law
Pusuant to General Assembly resolution 53/100, a plenary meeting
of the General Assembly was held on 17 November 1999 to mark the
end of the United Nations Decade of International Law. The Assembly
had before it the report of the Secretary-General (A/54/362 and
Add.1), the Letter from the Permanent Representatives of the Netherlands
and the Russian Federation addressed to the Secretary-General (A/54/381)
and the Report of the Sixth Committee.
Agenda item 155
Report
of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first session
The Sixth
Committee considered the item at its 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),
21st
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
22nd
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
23rd
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
24th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
25th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
26th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
27th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
and 28th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meetings,
held from 25 October 1999 to 5 November 1999. It had before it the
Report
of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first
session. The Chairman of the International Law Commission introduced
chapters I-IV, VII, V, VI, and VIII-X of its report to the General
Assembly at the 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th, and 25th meetings, held
on 25 October, 27 October, 29 October, 2 November and 3 November,
respectively.
Statements
were made by the representatives of Norway (on behalf of the Nordic
countries), Japan, Germany, Argentina, Guatemala, Chile, Finland
(also on behalf of the Nordic countries), France, the Czech Republic,
Côte d’Ivoire, Hungary, Costa Rica, Croatia, Brazil, Slovenia,
Poland, the Republic of Korea, Venezuela, the Russian Federation,
Pakistan, Mexico, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Algeria,
Italy, the United States, Vietnam, India, Australia, the United
Republic of Tanzania, Spain, Portugal, Denmark (also on behalf of
Nordic countries), Austria, Singapore, Indonesia, Slovakia, China,
New Zealand, Israel, Bulgaria, Sweden (also on behalf of the Nordic
Countries), Tunisia, Niger, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Burkina
Faso, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Cyprus, Egypt, Turkey and the
Observer for Switzerland.
All speakers
commended the Commission for its adoption of the draft articles
on the nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession
of States (chapter
IV of the Commission's Report). The view was expressed that
the draft articles strike a balance between the interests of States
and the rights of citizens, contributing to the reduction of statelessness.
Some supported their adoption by the General Assembly in the form
of a declaration. Others called for considering the possibility
of adopting a convention instead of a declaration.
Still others
were of the view that further clarification was required, both as
regards the implication of adopting the Declaration and in relation
to the interrelationship between some of the draft articles. Some
called for the inclusion of a provision recognizing the nationality
of a constituent unit as the general criterion for the acquisition
of nationality in cases where the predecessor State is a federation.
A preference was also voiced for further reflection on, inter alia,
the need to clarify the meaning of article 19, the harmonious application
of the rules and the implications for limiting their application
to situations of succession in accordance with international law.
The view was also expressed that a more thorough consideration of
the dominance of the principal of habitual residence in regulating
the succession of States was called for.
As regards
the nationality of legal persons in relation to the succession
of States, different views were expressed in the Committee.
While some supported the Commission’s continued consideration of
the question, others supported the Commission’s conclusion not to
consider the item further.
With regard
to State Responsibility (chapter
V of the Commission's Report), the Commission was commended
for significant simplifications and clarifications of the draft
articles. At the same time, it was cautioned against over-simplification,
and against making substantial changes in the draft articles adopted
on first reading.
With regard
to "State crimes", some support was expressed for its
retention and a preference for the term "serious international
obligation" to cover the same idea was proposed. At the same
time strong opposition was expressed against its retention. Agreement
was also expressed by some speakers for the recognition of a hierarchy
among the norms of international law, if they entailed different
consequences. In that regard, it was noted that responsibility arising
from a violation of a jus cogens or erga omnes norm should be considered
to be extremely serious.
Support was
expressed for the retention in the draft articles of the requirement
of "exhaustion of local remedies".
With regard
to circumstances precluding wrongfulness, it was argued that a "state
of necessity" should be narrowly construed and a distinction
be made between it and "humanitarian intervention". Others
went further and called for the exclusion of the concept of "humanitarian
intervention" in its entirety, since it was controversial,
and was best considered by the political organs of the Organization.
Furthermore,
a narrow definition for self-defence was favoured. It was proposed
that article 51 of the Charter concerning self-defence be expanded
further to include anticipatory self-defence. The view was also
expressed that the rules of the jus in bello should apply
equally to in situations of "self-defense".
While some
preferred the retention of the notion of "consent", others
cautioned against an abusive interpretation of such an excuse.
Support was
further expressed for the inclusion of "compliance with peremptory
norm" as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness. A preference
was expressed for the inclusion of an explicit provision relating
to jus cogens.
The Commission
was urged to reconsider the articles in Part Two with a view
to arriving at more generally acceptable proposals dealing with
the definition of an injured State, content of compensation
and countermeasures. It was also noted that a precise definition
of the conditions for joint responsibility of States was also needed.
Some speakers noted the importance of providing a precise definition
for "injured States", so as to distinguish between those
injured States that suffer actual damage and those that suffer only
legal injury. It was argued that material injury was an essential
component of any such definition. With regard to "compensation",
some speakers called for detailed provisions on measures for its
calculation. With regard to countermeasures, support was
expressed both for their deletion and their retention. Some speakers
questioned the linkage between countermeasures and dispute settlement,
while others agreed with such a linkage. Still others emphasized
the need for clear rules on this subject.
With regard
to the topic "Reservations to treaties" (chapter
VI of the Commission's Report), support was expressed for the
Guide to Practice accompanied by model clauses. Its usefulness and
importance for the practice of States and international organizations
alike was emphasized. It was also noted that the Guide to Practice
offered useful clarifications and minimized disputes relating to
reservations. Support was expressed for the final product taking
the form of guidelines without modifying the existing regime of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties. In that regard, while
support was expressed for a specific (sui generis) regime for reservations
to human rights treaties, it was also argued that the Vienna regime
should be preserved without any such special dispensation for human
rights treaties
While
satisfaction was expressed with the general outline of the draft
guidelines, some speakers preferred that the Commission focus mainly
on issues on which States need guidance (admissibility of reservations,
effect of objection) and complete the topic in the remaining two
years of its term. It was also hoped that the Commission consider
the effect of inadmissible reservations in view of the uncertainty
of the Vienna regime and in the absence of an objective body or
system to decide on the compatibility of reservations with the object
and purpose of a treaty.
Concerning
the first chapter on definitions of reservations and interpretative
declarations, reference was made to the importance of the definition
of reservations, as well as of the definition of interpretative
declarations which filled one of the lacunae of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of treaties. It was observed that the definition of interpretative
declarations was especially important for successor States, which
might use such declarations upon their notification of succession.
Some speakers called for the exclusion of other unilateral statements,
which are not reservations or interpretative declarations, from
the scope of the Guide to Practice. The view was also expressed
that interpretative declarations should be viewed in light of the
specificity of different cultures. Others found the distinction
between conditional interpretative declarations and reservations
useful.
Support was
further voiced for the draft guidelines concerning reservations
to bilateral treaties and for the view that "reservations"
to bilateral treaties constituted in fact proposals to renegotiate
the treaty.. It was also pointed out that statements of non-recognition
could not constitute reservations.
As regards
the topic of Jurisdictional immunities of States and their properties
(chapter
VII of the Commission's report),while support was expressed
for the Commission's suggestions on some of the issues identified
by the Working Group, caution was expressed concerning other issues.
In terms of a further view the Commission's suggestions were supported
in general as conducive to reaching a wider consensus on the topic.
Interest was
expressed in discussing further the question of the existence or
non existence of jurisdictional immunities in actions arising, inter
alia, out of violations of jus cogens norms.
While support
was expressed for including provisions on allowing measures of constraint
against State property in certain cases, support was also expressed
in the Committee for the absolute State immunity approach.
The Committee
was reminded of the usefulness of adopting an international legal
framework regulating State immunity. In that regard, support was
expressed for drawing up a Model Law on State Immunity. Others stressed
the need for adopting basic rules on state immunity at the international
level, in the form of a convention. In terms of a further view,
it was felt that, at present, international conditions were not
sufficiently ripe for a convention on the topic.
As regards
unilateral acts of States (chapter
VIII of the Commission's report), a preference was expressed
for the inclusion of the element of "autonomy of the act"
in the definition, and doubts were expressed about confining the
study to "declarations". Doubts were also expressed about
the possibility of clearly distinguishing legal from political unilateral
acts. In that regard, it was also felt that since all acts of the
State were political in nature, the real question was which acts
produced legal effects. It was noted in that regard that the intention
of the author of the act was as important as its legal effects in
determining whether an unilateral act was political or juridical
in nature.
The view was
expressed that the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
could serve as a useful guide on certain aspects of the topic, such
as the validity of the declaration of will and nullity of acts,
but not on other aspects of the topic, such as interpretation,
modification, suspension and termination of unilateral acts. In
terms of a further view, the rules of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties do not provide an appropriate framework for the
study of unilateral acts. The view was also expressed that many
rules on reservations to treaties could also be applied mutatis
mutandis to unilateral acts.
The Committee
was reminded of the importance of Governments responding adequately
to the questionnaire on the topic prepared by the Secretariat in
consultation with the Special Rapporteur.
With regard
to the topic International liability for injurious consequences
arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (chapter
IX of the Commission's report), while support was expressed
for the work carried out by the Commission on the prevention aspect
of the topic, different views were expressed regarding the Commission’s
consideration of the question of liability. On the one hand, a preference
was expressed for waiting until the completion of the Commission’s
work on the prevention of transboundary hazardous activities, in
order to allow for further international practice to develop in
this area. It was argued further that the regulation of international
liability ought to proceed with particular topics or regions, and
should be limited to operator’s civil liability. At the same time
the view was expressed that such deferral should be without prejudice
to the Commission’s future work on the issue. Conversely, several
speakers called on the Commission to continue with all aspects of
the liability component of the topic.
With regard
to the topic Diplomatic Protection, reference was made to
the requirements of mutual obligations imposed on diplomatic missions
and on the host country in the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic
and Consular Relations of 1961 and 1973.
As regards
the long-term programme of work of the Commission (chapter
X of the Commission's report), while support was expressed for
the preliminary selection of suitable topics by the Commission (responsibility
of international organizations, effect of armed conflicts), it was
also suggested that some aspects of international environmental
law should also be considered. Conversely, it was felt that the
Commission should continue to focus on general international law,
and postpone any further elaboration of environmental issues,
which were being discussed in various specialized fora. The view
was also expressed that focus should be placed on practical needs
and assisting other international bodies in clarifying any particular
area of international law. Others supported the inclusion of new
appropriate topics reflecting a balance between doctrinal aspects
and the reality of international relations and practice.
With respect
to the working methods of the Commission (chapter
X of the Commission's report), while support was expressed in
favour of holding a split session of the Commission next year, others
felt that it was premature to take any decisions on split sessions
despite their advantages, especially since financial considerations
had to be taken into account. Governments were encouraged to provide
adequate responses to the questionnaires of the Commission. Others
encouraged the Commission to take into consideration statements
of delegations made in the Sixth Committee. Reference was also made
to enhanced co-operation with regional bodies. Notice was taken
of the fact that the Commission’s documentation had been made available
on its web site (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm). Support was
expressed for future codification texts taking the form of legally
binding instruments.
Support was
expressed for the innovations introduced by the Commission in the
structure of its report as well as for the Commission’s energy and
adaptability in facing new challenges. At the same time, the Sixth
Committee was urged to respond in a more imaginative manner to the
needs of the Commission.
The Committee
observed a minute of silence in memory of Minister Doudou Thiam
of Senegal, former member, Chairman and Special Rapporteur of the
Commission.
Action
taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 36th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 19 November 1999, the Vice-Chair of the Sixth Committee,
the representative of Colombia introduced a draft resolution entitled
"Report of the International Law Commission on the work of
its fifty-first session" (A/C.6/54/L.7/Rev.1 and Corr.1). The
Committee also had before it a statement of the programme budget
implications of draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.7/Rev.1 and Corr.1,
submitted by the Secretary-General in accordance with rule 153 of
the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. (A/C.6/54/L.21).
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted operative
paragraph 10 of the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 111 to
1, with 4 abstentions. (See the report of the Sixth Committee for
the voting)
The representatives of Finalnd and Cote d'Ivoire
made statements before the vote.
The representative of the United States made a
statement in explanation of vote after the vote.
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft
resoluton A/C.6/54/L.7/Rev.1 and Corr.1, without a vote.
After the adoption of the draft resolution, statements
in explanation of position were made by the representatives of Canada
and the United Republic of Tanzania.
At the 35th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 18 November 1999, the Vice- Chair of the Sixth Committee,
the representative of New Zealand introduced a draft resolution
entitled "Nationality of natural persons in relation to the
succession of States" (A/C.6/54/L.6 and Corr.1). At the same
meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.6 and
Corr.1 without a vote.
This agenda
item was subsequently considered at the fifty-fifth
session (2000)
Agenda item156
Report
of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work
of its thirty-second session
The Sixth
Committee considered the item at its 3rd (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
and 4th (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meetings, held on 11 and 12 October 1999, respectively. The Chairman
of UNCITRAL presented the 1999
report to the Committee, at the 3rd (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, and statements were made by the representatives of Mexico
(on behalf of the Rio Group), Japan, Austria, Brazil, United Kingdom,
Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Malaysia, Islamic Republic
of Iran, France, Germany, Russian Federation, China, Canada, Hungary,
Pakistan, Italy, U.S., India, Thailand, Colombia, Venezuela, Indonesia,
Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Ukraine,
the United Republic of Tanzania, New Zealand, Nigeria, Ecuador,
Belarus and the observer of WIPO.
The speakers
welcomed the report and the stressed the importance of the work
carried out by UNCITRAL and its Secretariat in the unification of
international trade law, the dissemination of relevant information
and through the training and technical assistance provided.
The point was made that UNCITRAL constituted the core legal body
within the United Nations system in the field of international trade
law. Support was expressed for the provision of adequate human and
financial resources to allow UNICTRAL to carry out its mandate.
Some suggestions were made on how to rationalize the work of the
Commission.
Particular
support was expressed for the work undertaken by UNICTRAL on privately
financed infrastructure projects, electronic signatures and receivable
financing. Some concerns were voiced on possible duplication of
work on the topics of international commercial arbitration, and
cross-border insolvency; in this regard, it was noted that due coordination
with other UN bodies and international organizations was required.
Some speakers
were of the view that UNICTRAL should take more into account the
concrete conditions of developing countries and that efforts need
to be undertaken to increase the participation of developing countries
in the work of the Commission.
The Chairman
of UNCITRAL made a concluding statement.
Action
taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 29th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 11 November 1999, the representative of Austria, on
behalf of Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain,
Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada,
Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finalnd, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala,
Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America
and Venezuela, subsequently joined by The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia and Haiti, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Report
of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the
work of its thirty-second session" (A/C.6/54/L.4). At the same
meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.4 without
a vote.
This agenda
item was subsequently considered at the fifty-fifth
session (2000)
Agenda item 157
Report
of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country
The Sixth
Committee considered the item at its 35th (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, held on 18 November 1999. At that meeting, the Chairman
of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country introduced the
report of the Committee contained in document A/54/26.
Statements were made by the representatives of Finland (on behalf
of the European Union), Cuba, Japan, Malaysia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
China, the Russian Federation and the United States.
All speakers
welcomed the increase of the membership of the Committee by four
new members (Cuba, Hungary, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Malaysia).
Most delegations welcomed the efforts done by the Host Country in
order to maintain appropriate conditions for the normal functioning
of missions accredited to the United Nations.
Several speakers
referred to continuing problems such as the host country travel
restrictions, housing for diplomatic personnel, parking regulations
and security for missions and the safety of their personnel. One
delegation also recalled that its funds had been frozen in the host
country's banks.
Action
taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 35th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 18 November 1999, the representative of Cyprus, on behalf
of Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, and Cote d'Ivoire introduced a
draft resolution entitled "Report of the Committee on Relations
with the Host Country" (A/C.6/54/L.17) and made an oral revision.
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.17,
as orally revised without a vote.
This agenda
item was subsequently considered at the fifty-fifth
session (2000)
Agenda item 158
Establishment
of an International Criminal Court
The Sixth
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)
and 14th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meetings,
held from 20 to 22 October 1999. It had before it the reports of
the first
and second
session of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal
Court held in 1999. Statements were made by the representatives
of Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Mexico (on behalf
of the Rio Group), Norway, Cuba, Republic of Korea, Japan, Australia
(also on behalf of the following members of the South Pacific Forum:
Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea,
Samoa, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu), Colombia, Iran (Islamic Republic
of), Senegal, Cameroon, Russian Federation, Cyprus, Mozambique (on
behalf of SADC), San Marino, Egypt, Ecuador, Canada, Croatia, Pakistan,
Brazil, Czech Republic, Hungary, Venezuela, South Africa, Saudi
Arabia, Lesotho, Ghana, Thailand, the Sudan, Mongolia, China, the
United States, Ukraine, Libya, Liechtenstein, Uganda, Indonesia,
Slovenia, Kenya, Poland, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf
of CARICOM), Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Israel,
Haiti, the Syrian Arab Republic and the observers for Switzerland
and the International Committee of the Red Cross. All delegations
expressed support for the ICC, as well as appreciation for the efforts
of the Preparatory Commission.
It was noted that while substantial progress had been made in the
finalization of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and the Elements
of Crimes, much work still remained. In light of the June 2000 deadline
for the finalization of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and
the Elements of Crimes, support was expressed for the holding of
a further two three-week sessions of the Preparatory Commission
in the first half of 2000. Some called for priority to be given
to those items to be completed by June 2000. Furthermore, proposals
were made to schedule a third meeting in 2000 to continue work on
the other items in resolution F, such as the financial regulations
and the definition of the crime of aggression, and to extend the
mandate of the Commission beyond 2000 to carry on with that work.
The hope was expressed that the General Assembly would provide the
Preparatory Commission with the necessary time and resources in
the year 2000.
The point was made that the purpose of both the Rules of Procedure
and Evidence, and the Elements of Crimes should be to facilitate
the interpretation and application of the Statute, in strict conformity
with it. Furthermore, the need for the application of the law by
the Court to be completely impersonal, without any differentiation
based on the nationality of the person under investigation or accused
was highlighted.
As regards the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the point
was made that greater attention should be given to the rights of
suspects. Colombia and Senegal stressed the need to allow for access
by victims and witnesses to proceedings. Similarly some observed
that sufficient flexibility should be introduced to allow for the
exercise of discretion by judges. Others added that a right balance
between the rights of the victims, suspects and the accused should
be achieved while still others thought the rules should be flexible,
balanced and not too detailed.
In connection with the Elements of Crimes, particular emphasis
was placed on respecting the principle of nullum crimen sine lege
and for ensuring consistency with existing laws of armed conflict.
Emphasis was also placed on the need to regulate the recruitment
of children in armed conflicts. Some felt that the elements of crimes
should reflect contemporary international law while others maintained
that crimes under the Court's jurisdiction should be clarified as
much as possible.
Several delegations welcomed the establishment of the working group
on the crime of aggression. Some stressed the importance
that an appropriate definition of the crime of aggression, and its
being under the Court's jurisdiction, had from the standpoint of
a wide acceptance of the Statute. In their view an agreed definition
of this crime would encourage more States to ratify the Statute.
The primacy of the Security Council in determining the existence
of an act of aggression was stressed.
Several delegations reported on preparations to ratify the Statute.
It was also proposed that technical assistance be made available
to small countries so as to facilitate the legislative process.
It was also noted that the finalization of an authentic text of
the Statute would lead to further ratifications. Reference was made
to a ratification kit developed by SADC legal experts to assist
in the ratification of the Rome Statute. States were called upon
to make voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund created under
resolution 53/105 to enable delegations from least developed countries
to participate in the Preparatory Commission.
The view was expressed that the Statute should not be applied selectively.
Misgivings were also expressed about the Statute risking
inhibiting international military efforts in support of humanitarian
or peacekeeping objectives and about prosecutions being brought
against personnel engaged in official actions when their government
is not a party to the Statute. Concerns were also expressed about
the inclusion in the Rome Statute of the crime of transfer of populations
as a war crime in art. 8(2)(b)(viii). Caution was also expressed
against allowing the ICC to become a mechanism for interfering in
the internal affairs of States.
A delegation stressed the importance of trying to arrive at an arrangement
to obtain the support for the Statute of those delegations
that did not support it in Rome, on the understanding that the Statute
could not be reopened. Others supported efforts to address the concerns
of those States that had not signed nor ratified the Statute, with
a view to achieving universal support for the ICC.
The observer for the International Committee of the Red Cross announced
a study on international and national case law on the elements of
war crimes that the Red Cross would make available to the Commission
at its next session.
Action
taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 36th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 19 November 1999, the representative of the Netherlands
introduced a draft resolution entitled "Establishment of the
International Criminal Court" (A/C.6/54/L.8/Rev.1 and Corr.1).
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.8/Rev.1
and Corr.1 without a vote. The representatives of the Syrian Arab
Republic and Lebanon made statements before the adoption of the
draft resolution.
This agenda
item was subsequently considered at the fifty-fifth
session (2000)
Agenda item 159
Report
of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on
the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization
The Sixth
Committee undertook its consideration of the report of the Special
Committee on the Charter at its 5th (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
6th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
7th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
and 8th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meetings, held from 13 to 18 October 1999. The Chairman of the Special
Committee introduced the 1999 report (A/54/33).
Statements were made by the representatives of Mexico (on behalf
of the Rio Group), Finland (on behalf of the European Union and
associated States), Japan, Republic of Korea, Colombia, Malaysia,
Russian Federation, Guatemala, Egypt, India, Algeria, China, Croatia,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ghana, Canada, Hungary, Cuba, Zambia, Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Belarus, Jordan, Viet Nam, Malawi, Swaziland,
Pakistan, Tunisia, Madagascar, Uganda, Iraq, Brazil, Sierra Leone,
the Dem. People's Rep. of Korea, Ukraine, Chile, Bulgaria, Yemen,
Israel, Turkey, Costa Rica, Haiti, the United States, Australia,
Syrian Arab Republic, Nigeria, Kenya, Indonesia, Côte d'Ivoire,
and Israel.
Some speakers,
emphasizing the importance of implementing the provisions of
the Charter related to assistance to third States affected by sanctions,
welcomed the report of the Secretary-General on the issue (A/54/383),
as well as the report of the Special Committee, and recalled the
recommendations and conclusions of the ad hoc expert group contained
in the 1998 report of the Secretary-General (A/53/312).
Some delegations favoured the establishment of an adequately financed
permanent mechanism, within the United Nations system, to consider
the potential adverse impact of sanctions on Third States, including
a fund to assist affected States. Support was also expressed for
the role of the Secretariat in monitoring the political, economic,
social and humanitarian effects of sanctions.
Some observed
that sanctions should be an exceptional measure, to be applied only
when all other means of settlement of disputes have been exhausted
and that sanctions are to be defined in time and be lifted as soon
as their objectives are achieved. Several delegations also emphasized
that ways and means ought to be devised to minimize the adverse
impact of sanctions on the civilian population, and that the possibility
of exceptions on humanitarian grounds should be envisaged. Furthermore,
it was argued that the right to consult with the Security Council,
as contemplated in article 50, should be with the aim of finding
ways and means of ameliorating the effects of sanctions on third
States. It was observed that effectively targeting sanctions could
minimize their adverse effect on third States. In that regard, the
Sanctions Committees were implored to consider a methodology for
assessing the impact of sanctions. The opposing view was expressed
that the Charter does not provide that all peaceful means of settlement
need be exhausted before the Security Council can impose enforcement
measures.
Support was
reiterated for the proposal by the Russian Federation on basic
conditions and criteria for the introduction of sanctions and other
coercive measures and their implementation, which was described
as providing a useful basis for the deliberations of the Special
Committee on the question of sanctions.
In connection
with the proposal on defining the legal basis for peacekeeping
operations, presented by the Russian Federation, while some
support was expressed for the initiative, concern was expressed
that further consideration of the item by the Special Committee
should not duplicate the work of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping
Operations. The need to enhance communication with other UN bodies
in this field was stressed.
While some
support was expressed for the proposal submitted by the Russian
Federation and Belarus to request an advisory opinion from the
ICJ as to the legal consequences of the resort to the use of force
by States either without the proper authorization of the Security
Council or outside the context of self-defence, objections were
also raised on the grounds that it would not be useful to ask the
Court to present its opinion on such a generic question. It was
suggested that additional criteria for the use of force in humanitarian
emergencies could be elaborated so as to reconfirm the validity
of the Charter.
General support
was expressed for the proposed draft resolution on the strengthening
of the ICJ in view of its increased workload. The point was
made that the increase in the number of cases before the Court,
without a commensurate increase in its resources, has put at stake
the ability of the Court to undertake its work in a timely fashion.
While some
support was expressed for the proposal concerning the establishment
of a dispute prevention and early settlement service, and the
supplementary proposal by the United Kingdom, emphasis was placed
by some on the principle that States parties to a dispute are free
to choose from available means of peaceful settlement.
With regard
to proposals concerning the Trusteeship Council, the view
was expressed that it was neither appropriate to abolish it nor
to change its mandate at the present stage, since such action could
be dealt with in the overall context of United Nations reform. At
the same time, some support was expressed for having the Council
reconstituted as a guardian of the common heritage of mankind.
Interest was
expressed in the proposal on strengthening the role of the Organization
and enhancing its effectiveness, presented by Cuba, and the
proposal on the strengthening of the role of the United Nations
in the maintenance of international peace and security, presented
by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Concerning
the Secretary-General's report on the Repertory of Practice of
the United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of Practice of the
Security Council (A/54/363)
most speakers commended the efforts of the Secretariat in this field.
However it was pointed out that the Secretary-General should give
clear priority to the work on the Repertory so as to reduce the
existing backlog and speed up the work on both important publications.
A point was made that the publications should be issued in all official
languages of the Organization. Support was expressed for the establishment
of a special training and internship programme and a voluntary fund
to expedite the work. It was suggested that avoiding an overlap
between the two publications could contribute to their timely preparation
within the existing resources.
Various suggestions
were considered regarding the working methods of the Special
Committee.
Action
taken by the Sixth Committee:
At the 34th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 16 November 1999, the representaive 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.6/54/L.11) and made an oral
revision. At the same meeting, the representatives of the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Russian Federation made statements
in explanation of their respective positions before action was taken
on the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted
draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.11, as orally revised, without a vote.
At the 17th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 27 October 1999, the representative of Bulgaria, also
on behalf of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, introduced a draft
resolution entitled "Implementation of the provisions of the
Charter of the United Nations related to assistance to third States
affected by the application of sanctions" (A/C.6/54/L.3). At
the 30th (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 12 November, the representative of Ghana and coordinator
of informal consultations introduced a revised draft resolution
entitled "Implementation of the provisions of the Charter of
the United Nations related to assistance to third States affected
by the application of sanctions" (A/C.6/54/L.3/Rev.1). At the
same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.3/Rev.1
without a vote. The representative of the Russian Federation made
a statement in explanation of position after the adoption of the
draft resolution.
At the 29th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 11 November, the representative of Mexico introduced
a draft resolution entitled "Strengthening of the International
Court of Justice" (A/C.6/54/L.5). At the same meeting, the
Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.5, without a vote.
This agenda
item was subsequently considered at the fifty-fifth
session (2000)
Agenda item 160
Measures
to eliminate international terrorism
Working
Group on international terrorism
The General
Assembly, in resolution 53/108 of 8 December 1998, inter alia,
decided that the Ad Hoc Committee established pursuant to resolution
51/210 of 17 December 1996, should hold its third session from 15
to 26 March 1999, devoting appropriate time to the consideration of
the outstanding issues relating to the elaboration of a draft international
convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, and should
initiate the elaboration of a draft international convention for the
suppression of terrorist financing. It further recommended that the
work continue during the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly,
from 27 September to 8 October 1999, within the framework of a working
group of the Sixth Committee. Accordingly, the Sixth Committee, at
its second meeting, on 27 September 1999, established such a Working
Group and elected Mr. Philippe Kirsch (Canada) as its Chairman.
The Working
Group held 11 meetings, from 27 September to 8 October 1999. The Working
Group had before it the report of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee
(A/C.6/53/L.4),
wherein a revised text of the draft convention on the suppression
of acts of nuclear terrorism prepared by the Friends of the Chairman
was presented, as well as the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the
work of its third session (A/54/37),
containing, inter alia, a discussion paper submitted by the
Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee on articles 3 to 25, and a working
paper prepared by France on articles 1 and 2 of the draft international
convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. The
Working Group had also before it oral and written proposals submitted
during its meetings.
With regard to the elaboration of the draft international convention
for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, it was noted at
the first meeting of the Working Group that while some consultations
had been held on the draft convention, broader consultations were
required to find an acceptable solution to the remaining issues concerning
the scope of the Convention. At the 11th meeting, the Working Group
was informed that while there appeared to be a willingness among delegations
to continue work on the convention, it was determined that the time
was not opportune for the convening of informal consultations during
the Working Group. The Chairman appointed Ms. Cate Steains (Australia)
to act as a coordinator on the issue with a view to organizing open-ended
informal consultations at the appropriate time.
Concerning the elaboration of the draft international convention for
the suppression of the financing of terrorism, discussions were held
both in the Working Group and in informal consultations. On the basis
of those discussions as well as written or oral proposals and amendments
submitted to the Working Group, a new discussion paper on articles
5, 7, 8, 12 and 17 was prepared by the Friends of the Chairman for
consideration by the Working Group, which was further revised by the
Friends of the Chairman during the session of the Working Group. A
revised text of article 1 was also submitted by the coordinator of
the informal consultations. A revised text of article 2 was orally
introduced by the coordinator of the informal consultations at the
10th meeting of the Working Group. A discussion paper on the preamble,
as revised, was submitted by France. Following the discussions of
those revised texts, and taking into account the comments by delegations,
the Friends of the Chairman prepared a revised text of the draft convention
(subsequently revised further), and which was orally amended at the
Working Group's 11th meeting.
At its 11th meeting, the Working Group decided to submit the draft
international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism
to the Sixth Committee for discussion and consideration. It noted
that the Sixth Committee might wish to subsequently submit the draft
convention to the General Assembly with a view to its adoption.
At its 11th meeting, the Working Group decided to recommend that the
coordinator for the draft international convention for the suppression
of acts of nuclear terrorism consult with the Chairman and Bureau
of the Sixth Committee on the organization of consultations on the
draft convention and report to the Chairman of the Sixth Committee
on the outcome of those consultations.
The Chairman
of the Ad Hoc Committee and Working Group, Mr. Phillipe Kirsch presented
an oral
report on the work of the Working Group to the Sixth Committee
at its 31st (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, held on 12 November 1999
Consideration by the Sixth Committee
The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 31st (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
32nd (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
33rd (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A),
34th (E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
and 35th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meetings,
held from 12 to 18 November 1999. The Committee had before it the
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution
51/210 of 17 December 1996 (A/54/37),
the Report of the Secretary-General (A/54/301and
Add.1),
Report of the Working Group (A/C.6/54/L.2)
and various letters.
Statements were
made by the representatives of Mexico (on behalf of the Rio Group),
Finland (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Colombia,
Japan, the United Arab Emirates, the Russian Federation, the Republic
of Korea, Yemen, Belarus, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Egypt, Iraq, Maldives,
Romania, Oman, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Iran (Islamic Republic
of), Qatar, Cuba, Azerbaijan (on behalf of the GUUAM Group (Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and the Republic of Moldova)), Turkey,
Peru, Kuwait, China, Madagascar, Malawi, Hungary, Malaysia, Lebanon,
South Africa, Syria, Guatemala, Israel, Bahrain, Costa Rica (on behalf
of the GRUCA Group - Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and Panama), Libya, Sudan, Brazil, Burkina
Faso, Angola, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan,
India, Indonesia, Canada, Poland, Slovenia, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Liechtenstein, Ghana and France, Viet Nam, Saudi Arabia,
Azerbaijan, Haiti, the United States, Ethiopia, and New Zealand.
All speakers
condemned international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations
and expressed support for the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and of
the Working Group of the Sixth Committee in this regard. Reference
was made to the vulnerability of small States to terrorism. Some delegations
underscored the need to enhance cooperation at the national, regional
and international levels to eradicate terrorism. It was pointed out
that international cooperation in suppressing terrorism should be
carried out in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
and the basic norms and principles of international law, including
those related to human rights. Most delegations considered the United
Nations as the most appropriate forum to develop and implement measures
to counter terrorism and punish its perpetrators.
General support
was expressed for the adoption of the International Convention
for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism at the current
session of the General Assembly. It was pointed out that, though some
reservations were expressed in the process of its elaboration, the
draft represented a balanced text complementing existing instruments
in this field and that its adoption would help cut the sources of
the financing of terrorism. Some speakers pointed to some of the limitations
of the treaty, and a delegation expressed a strong preference for
postponing consideration of the draft convention until future discussions
could allow its adoption by consensus.
Speakers also
favoured the speedy completion of the work on the draft international
international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism
and its adoption. Some concern was expressed regarding the limited
progress achieved in the resolution of the outstanding difficulty
relating to the scope of its application. A point was made that, taking
into consideration the risks of nuclear terrorism, the outstanding
issues related to the scope of the draft convention should be resolved
as soon as possible, and Governments were called upon to enhance efforts
to overcome those remaining issues. Support was expressed for the
position of the NAM in this regard, namely that the scope of the draft
convention be expanded to include the activities of State militaries.
A reference was made to the need for the treaty to encompass State
terrorism as well. The view was also expressed that a distinction
should be drawn between the draft convention, as well as the issues
raised by the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons, and the use
and possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear powers. Several speakers
welcomed the appointment of a coordinator to consider outstanding
issues with a view to finalizing the treaty. The coordinator, Ms.
Cate Steains (Australia), presented an oral report to the Committee
on the status of the informal consultations being undertaken.
Support was
also expressed for the elaboration of a comprehensive convention
on international terrorism, and for the text prepared by India
which was viewed as an adequate basis for such work. It was proposed
by some that the comprehensive convention consider the question of
a legal definition of terrorism. A point was made, however, that the
draft text proposed by India contained many controversial issues and
that the necessity and feasibility of elaborating such a convention
should be studied carefully. The view was also expressed that the
proposed instrument should avoid broad definitional questions and
focus rather on its scope.
Some speakers
reiterated their position as regards the need to distinguish between
terrorism and the legitimate struggle by national liberation movements
for self-determination and independence, and called for the formulation
of an universal legal definition of terrorism. At the same
time, it was pointed out that reaching agreement on such a definition
was difficult and that the United Nations has been more successful
by focusing on treaties that criminalize specific manifestations of
terrorism.
Support was
expressed in the Committee for the convening of a high level conference
in 2000 under the auspices of the United Nations to formulate
a joint response to terrorism.
Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda spoke in exercise
of the right of reply.
Action taken
by the Sixth Committee:
At the 35th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 18 November 1999, the representative of Canada introduced
a draft resolution entitled "International Convention for the
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism" (A/C.6/54/L.16 and
Corr.1) and made an oral revision. At the same meeting, the Committee
adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.16 and Corr.1, as orally revised,
without a vote. After the adoption of the draft resolution, the representative
of the Sudan made a statement in explanation of position and the representative
of France made a concluding statement
At the 37th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 23 November 1999, the representative of Canada introduced
a draft resolution entitled "Measures to eliminate international
terrorism " (A/C.6/54/L.15/Rev.1) and made an oral revision.
At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/54/L.15/Rev.1
by a vote of 116 in favour to none against with 3 abstentions. After
the adoption of the draft resolution, the representatives of the Syrian
Arab Republic, the Sudan, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Islamic Republic
of Iran, Cuba, the United States, Ghana, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda made statements in
explanation of position.
This agenda
item was subsequently considered at the fifty-fifth
session (2000)
Agenda item 161
Review of the Statute of the Administrative
Tribunal of the United Nations
The Sixth Committee considered the item
at its 29th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
and 35th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meetings, held on 11 and 18 November 1999. Statements were made by
the representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, Sri Lanka,
Guatemala, Italy, Niger and Greece. Mr. Hubert Thierry, President
of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, also made a statement.
All speakers acknowledged the importance
of the work of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal on the occasion
of its 50th anniversary, and offered their general support
for the proposed amendments to the Statute of the Tribunal, as set
out in the draft resolution on the item (A/C.6/54/L.13 and Rev.1).
The United Kingdom, one of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution,
emphasized that the proposed amendments would not represent a radical
change to the Statute, nor would there be any financial implications
as a result of the implementation of the amendments.
The speakers highlighted the proposed
amendments regarding the need: to change the title of "Member" to
that of "Judge" and "Secretary" of the Tribunal to that of "Registrar";
to include in the Statute a requirement of appropriate legal qualifications
of the Members; to increase the term of office of the Members from
three years to four years; and to make provision in the Statute for
all the Members of the Tribunal to hear a case where a significant
legal question was at issue and/or where the three-Member panel, currently
provided for in the Statute, was unable to reach a unanimous decision
in a case. One speaker, however, questioned the need for unanimous
decisions, pointing out that other tribunals had found dissenting
opinions of great value. Another speaker suggested that cases before
the Tribunal be decided by a "simple majority", similar to the practice
of other tribunals. It was further suggested that the language of
the Statute should be gender-neutral.
Action taken
by the Sixth Committee:
At the 29th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 11 November 1999, the representative of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (on behalf of France and Ireland)
introduced a draft resolution entitled "Review of the Statute
of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal" (A/C.6/54/L.13).
Following the consideration of the draft resolution at the meeting
of the Sixth Committee on 11 November, a revised draft resolution
contained in document A/C.6/54/L.13/Rev.1 was circulated. No action
was taken by the Committee on the draft resolution.
At the 35th
(E,
F,
S,
R,
C,
A)
meeting, on 18 November, the representative of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (on behalf of France and Ireland)
introduced a draft decision entitled "Review of the Statute of
the United Nations Administrative Tribunal" (A/C.6/54/L.20).
The representatives of Nigeria, Malaysia, Sierra Leone and Cuba explained
their positions before taking a decision on the draft. At the same
meeting, the Committee adopted draft decision A/C.6/54/L.20 without
a vote.