Progressive development of the principles and norms of international law relating to the new international economic order

Background (Source: A/55/100)

At its thirtieth session, in 1975, in the course of its consideration of the item entitled “Report of the Economic and Social Council”, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Second Committee (A/10467, para. 58), took note of the draft resolution entitled “Consolidation and progressive evolution of the norms and principles of international economic development law” and decided to include that question as a separate item in the provisional agenda of its thirty-first session.

The General Assembly considered the question at its thirty-first to forty-fourth, forty-sixth and forty-eighth sessions (decisions 31/409, 32/440 and 33/424; resolutions 34/150, 35/166, 36/107, 37/103, 38/128, 39/75, 40/67, 41/73, 42/149, 43/162, 44/30 and 46/52; and decision 48/412).

At its fifty-first session, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, decided to resume consideration of the legal aspects of international economic relations at its fifty-fifty session (decision 51/441).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 8th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 16 October 2000. Statements were made by the representatives of Cuba and China.

The speakers stressed the importance of retaining the item on the agenda of the General Assembly. They pointed to the concerns of developing countries regarding the existing international economic order and particularly noted the role of the Organization in elaborating fair principles and norms of the new international economic order. A proposal was made to request Member States and competent international organizations to submit comments and proposals regarding the most appropriate procedure for the codification and progressive development of the principles and norms of international law related to international economic relations in the context of globalization and interdependence. In this connection, it was stated that the Secretary-General could prepare a report containing any such comments and proposals.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 8 November, the Chairman of the Committee introduced a draft decision entitled “Progressive development of the principles and norms of international law relating to the new international economic order” (A/C.6/55/L.10) and orally amended the text by inserting a reference to the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly. At its 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 10 November, the Committee adopted draft decision A/C.6/55/L.10, as orally amended, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/604)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-eighth session (2003)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

This item was included in the agenda of the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly, in 1982, at the request of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (A/37/142).

The General Assembly considered the question at its thirty-seventh, thirty-ninth, forty-first, forty-third, forty-fifth, forty-seventh, forty-ninth and fifty-first sessions (resolutions 37/116, 39/77, 41/72, 43/161, 45/38, 47/30, 49/48 and 51/155).

At its fifty-third session, as it had done in its previous resolutions on this item, the General Assembly, inter alia, appealed to all States parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 that had not yet done so to consider becoming parties to the additional Protocols at the earliest possible date; called upon all States, on becoming parties to Protocol I, to make the declaration provided for under article 90 of that Protocol; and requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Assembly at its fifty-fifth session a report on the status of the additional Protocols, as well as measures taken to strengthen the existing body of international humanitarian law, inter alia, with respect to its dissemination and full implementation at the national level, based on information received from Member States and the International Committee of the Red Cross (resolution 53/96).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 20 October 2000. The representatives of Slovakia, Italy, Romania, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Yemen, Syria, Germany, Chile, United Arab Emirates and Greece made statements. Switzerland and the ICRC made statements as observers. The WFP also spoke.

Delegations, in welcoming the Report of the Secretary-General (A/55/173 and Corr.1 and Add.1), stressed the importance that they attached to respect for international humanitarian law. Some reported on the measures taken to implement the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, alluding to their acceptance of the competence of the Fact-finding Commission under article 90 of Protocol 1, the formation of national committees on implementation of international humanitarian law as well as their ratification of or accession to other treaties on international humanitarian law, including the ICC Statute. At the same time, several delegations expressed concern over the persistent violations of international humanitarian law, a number of speakers cited examples of violations in the occupied territories. The need to strengthen the protection to civilians, particularly women, children and the elderly was emphasized, while welcoming the recent efforts, including those by the Security Council, to bring attention to and address the problem.

Some delegations welcomed the outcome of the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (Geneva 1999) as well as the issuance of the Secretary-General's Bulletin on the Observance of United Nations forces of International humanitarian law.

Switzerland, speaking as depositary of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, reported on the status of ratifications, stressing the importance of the two protocols achieving the same universality as the Conventions. It also pointed out that consultations, which have stalled because of the current situation in the Middle East, on the convening early next year of a Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of the Emblem with a view to adopting a third additional protocol on the protection of the emblem, would continue.

It was proposed that scope of the present item should be broadened to include other instruments of international humanitarian law (Geneva Conventions, The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and Protocols thereto 1954 and 1999, excluding instruments covered in the First Committee) and to discuss the item annually instead of biennially.

The attention of the Committee was further drawn to the dangers that United Nations and humanitarian personnel face in the field, as well as to the problem of the increased use of food as an instrument in armed conflict.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 27th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 13 November, the representative of Sweden, on behalf of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Swaziland, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine, subsequently joined by Angola, Austria, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Finland, Guinea, Kenya, the Netherlands, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts” (A/C.6/55/L.15). At its 28th meeting, on 14 November, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.15 without a vote. After the adoption of the draft resolution, the representative of Israel made a statement in explanation of position (see A/C.6/55/SR.28 (E, F, S, R, C, A)).

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/605)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh session (2002)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

This item was included in the agenda of the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly, in 1980, at the request of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (A/35/142).

At its thirty-sixth to forty-third, forty-fifth, forty-seventh, forty-ninth and fifty-first sessions, the General Assembly continued its consideration of the item (resolutions 36/33, 37/108, 38/136, 39/83, 40/73, 41/78, 42/154, 43/167, 45/39, 47/31, 49/49 and 51/156).

At its fifty-third session, the General Assembly reiterated the provisions of resolution 51/156, and requested the Secretary-General to issue on an annual basis a report containing (a) information on the state of ratification of, and accessions to, the instruments relevant to the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives; and (b) reports on violations involving diplomatic and consular missions and representatives and actions taken against offenders, received from States, as well as an analytical summary of the reports received from States and the views of States with respect to any measures needed to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives (resolution 53/97).

At the fifty-fourth session, the Secretary-General, complying with the General Assembly’s request that a report under this item be issued on an annual basis, circulated an information circular under the symbol A/INF/54/5 and Add.1 and 2.

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 18 October 2000. Statements were made by the representatives of France (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Norway (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Turkey, Cuba, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and Yemen.

The speakers expressed appreciation for the reports of the Secretary-General on this topic (A/55/164 and Add.1 and 2). All speakers underscored the importance of the protection of diplomatic and consular representatives and missions for peaceful international relations and cooperation. Some speakers recalled relevant incidents of terrorist attacks and other acts of violence and insisted that those responsible for such violations should be brought to justice. The speakers highlighted the need to respect the legal regime in place for the protection of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, including the relevant international conventions, principles of international law and various United Nations resolutions. An appeal was made to those States, which had not ratified or acceded to the relevant legal instruments, to do so. The importance of States' adherence to the reporting procedure on violations of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel, in accordance with General Assembly resolutions on the topic, was also emphasized.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 10 November, the representative of Finland, on behalf of Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lesotho, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe, subsequently joined by Azerbaijan, Belgium, Nigeria, the Republic of Moldova and Thailand, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives” (A/C.6/55/L.8 and Corr.1). At its 28th meeting, on 14 November, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.8 and Corr.1 without a vote. Before the adoption of the draft resolution, the representative of Mexico made a statement in explanation of position (see A/C.6/55/SR.28 (E, F, S, R, C, A)).

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/606)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-seventh session (2002)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

At its forty-sixth session, in 1991, the General Assembly, noting that the International Law Commission had completed the second reading of the draft articles on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property and recognizing the desirability of the conclusion of a convention on the subject, decided to establish an open-ended Working Group of the Sixth Committee to examine: (a) issues of substance arising out of the draft articles, in order to facilitate a successful conclusion of a convention through the promotion of general agreement; and (b) the question of the convening of an international conference, to be held in 1994 or subsequently, to conclude a convention on the subject (resolution 46/55).

The General Assembly continued its consideration of the item at its forty-seventh and forty-eighth sessions (decisions 47/414 and 48/413).

At its forty-ninth session, the General Assembly, inter alia: (a) accepted the recommendation of the International Law Commission that an international conference of plenipotentiaries be convened to consider the articles on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property and to conclude a convention on the subject; and (b) invited States to submit to the Secretary-General their comments on the conclusions of the chairman of the informal consultations held pursuant to its decision 48/413, and on the reports of the Working Group established under its resolution 46/55 and reconvened pursuant to its decision 47/414 (resolution 49/61).

The General Assembly continued its consideration of the item at its fifty-second and fifty-third sessions (resolutions 52/151 and 53/98).

At its fifty-fourth session, the General Assembly, having considered the report of the Working Group on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property of the International Law Commission, set forth in the annex to the report of the Commission on the work of its fifty-first session, and the report presented to the Sixth Committee by the Chairman of the open-ended working group of the Committee established under resolution 53/98, decided that the said working group of the Committee would continue its work at the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly to consider the future form of, and outstanding substantive issues related to, the draft articles on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property adopted by the International Law Commission at its forty-third session (resolution 54/101).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Chairman of the Working Group on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their property presented his report ((A/C.6/55/L.12)) on the results of the work of the Working Group, at the 30th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting of the Sixth Committee, held on 15 November 2000.

The Committee considered the item at its 31st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 16 November 2000. Statements were made by the representatives of Colombia (on behalf of the Rio Group), Cuba, China, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Slovakia, France, Greece and Belgium. All speakers noted the progress that had been achieved by the Working Group. The importance of the topic and the general trend away from absolute immunity to a more restrictive immunity of States were also noted. A number of speakers said that agreement was close on some of the outstanding issues. Others noted, however, that there were still divergent views. The view was also expressed that the divergent views on the substantive issues were not as broad as might first appear, and that there was enough evidence of custom and practice to make codification of the topic possible and necessary. All speakers were in favour of the convening of an Ad Hoc Committee in March 2002 to further the work done, consolidate areas of agreement and resolve outstanding issues with a view to elaborating a generally acceptable instrument based on the International Law Commission's 1991 draft articles. Several speakers expressed support for the elaboration of a legally binding instrument. Others preferred general guidelines or a model law on the topic. It was also noted that the work of the Ad hoc Committee should not be confined to the five substantive issues discussed by the Working Group, but to the 1991 draft articles as a whole.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 30th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 15 November, the representative of Germany, on behalf of Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Lesotho, Nigeria, Poland and Sierra Leone, subsequently joined by Bulgaria, Chile, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Georgia, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malta, the Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, the Sudan, Uganda and Ukraine, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property” (A/C.6/55/L.19) and orally revised operative paragraph 3 by inserting the words “the work done” after the words “to further”. At the 31st meeting, on 16 November, the Secretary of the Committee made a statement on the conference-servicing implications of the draft resolution. The representative of Canada made a statement prior to the adoption of the draft resolution (see A/C.6/55/SR.31 (E, F, S, R, C, A)). At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.19, as orally revised, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/607)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-sixth session (2001)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (see also item 16 (b)) was established by the General Assembly at its twenty-first session, in 1966, to promote the progressive harmonization and unification of the law of international trade (resolution 2205 (XXI)). It began its work in 1968. The Commission originally consisted of 29 Member States representing the various geographic regions and the principal legal systems of the world. At its twenty-eighth session, the Assembly increased the membership of the Commission from 29 to 36 (resolution 3108 (XXVIII)).

At its fifty-fourth session, the General Assembly appealed to Governments that had not yet done so to reply to the questionnaire circulated by the Secretariat in relation to the legal regime governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards; invited States to nominate persons to work with the private foundation established to encourage assistance to the Commission from the private sector; reaffirmed the mandate of the Commission, as the core legal body within the United Nations system in the field of international trade law, to coordinate legal activities in that field; reaffirmed the importance, in particular for developing countries, of the work of the Commission concerned with training and technical assistance in the field of international trade law, such as assistance in the preparation of national legislation based on legal texts of the Commission; expressed the desirability for increased efforts by the Commission, in sponsoring seminars and symposia, to provide such training and technical assistance, and expressed its appreciation to the Commission for organizing seminars and briefing missions in a number of countries and to the Governments whose contributions made it possible for the seminars and briefing missions to take place, and appealed to Governments, the relevant United Nations organs, organizations, institutions and individuals to make voluntary contributions to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Trust Fund for Symposia and, where appropriate, to the financing of special projects, and otherwise to assist the secretariat of the Commission in financing and organizing seminars and symposia, in particular in developing countries, and in the award of fellowships to candidates from developing countries to enable them to participate in such seminars and symposia; appealed to the United Nations Development Programme and other bodies responsible for development assistance, such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as to Governments in their bilateral aid programmes, to support the training and technical assistance programme of the Commission and to cooperate and coordinate their activities with those of the Commission; appealed to Governments, the relevant United Nations organs, organizations, institutions and individuals to make voluntary contributions to the trust fund for travel assistance to developing countries that were members of the Commission, at their request and in consultation with the Secretary-General; requested the Secretary-General to ensure the effective implementation of the programme of the Commission; and stressed the importance of bringing into effect the conventions emanating from the work of the Commission for the global unification and harmonization of international trade law, and to that end urged States that had not yet done so to consider signing, ratifying or acceding to those conventions (resolution 54/103).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth 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 9 and 10 October 2000, respectively. The Chairman of UNCITRAL presented the 2000 report (A/55/17) to the Committee at the 3rd meeting, and statements were made by the representatives of France, the Russian Federation, Austria, Singapore, Germany, Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries), India, China, Cuba, Indonesia, Ukraine, Japan, Guatemala, United Kingdom, Kenya, Nigeria, Bahrain, Uganda, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lithuania, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, the United States of America, Australia, Egypt, Belarus, and Canada. The speakers welcomed the Commission's report and reiterated their support for its work as the core legal body in international trade law.

The Commission was congratulated for the successful completion of its work on the Legislative Guide on Privately Financed Infrastructure Projects. Some of the speakers emphasised the importance of holding a colloquium to disseminate information about the Legislative Guide. Appreciation was also expressed for the significant progress made by UNCITRAL regarding receivables financing and electronic signatures. The Commission was encouraged to finalize its work on the draft Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade in 2001.

It was further noted that, in such fields as arbitration, insolvency and transport law, due coordination with other United Nations bodies and international organisation was required to avoid duplication, overlap and conflict. Support was expressed for the future work of the Commission in the area of electronic commerce (electronic contracting, on-line dispute settlement and dematerialization of documents of title). However, some delegations expressed concern regarding the ongoing and future work of the Commission given its resource constraints, particularly in developing model laws in the absence of a demonstrable need for them in potential user countries. It was also suggested that UNCITRAL exercise caution so as not to develop rules that may induce over-regulation of commercial transactions, particularly in the area of electronic commerce. The suggestion was made that the Sixth Committee consider the elaboration of a declaration to clarify how the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards should be interpreted.

Some speakers were of the view that efforts needed to be undertaken to increase the participation of developing countries in the work of the Commission. It was proposed that the Sixth Committee consider the possibility of expanding the Commission's membership.

A number of speakers raised concerns relating to the limited resources allocated to UNICTRAL for purposes of carrying out its mandate. Support was expressed for the Commission's recommendation that the Secretary-General be requested to consider increasing both the human and financial resources allocated to the Commission's Secretariat.

Several speakers stressed the importance of the widest dissemination of UNCITRAL documents and of the Commission's continued work in the areas of training and technical assistance, with particular reference being made to the dissemination of relevant information through the CLOUT (Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts) system. Particular emphasis was placed on the needs of developing countries and of the economies in transition.

The Chairman of UNCITRAL made a concluding statement.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 24th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 3 November, the representative of Austria, on behalf of Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Venezuela, subsequently joined by Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana and Saudi Arabia, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its thirty-third session” (A/C.6/55/L.5). At its 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 8 November, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.5 without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/608)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-sixth session (2001)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

The International Law Commission was established by the General Assembly at its second session, in 1947, with a view to giving effect to Article 13, paragraph 1 a, of the Charter. The object of the Commission is to promote the progressive development of international law and its codification. The Commission concerns itself primarily with public international law, but it is not precluded from entering the field of private international law (resolution 174 (II)).

The statute of the Commission, annexed to resolution 174 (II), was subsequently amended (resolutions 485 (V), 984 (X), 985 (X) and 36/39). The Commission consists of 34 members elected for a term of five years. The last election took place at the fifty-first session (decision 51/309).

At its fifty-fourth session, the General Assembly, inter alia, expressed its appreciation to the International Law Commission for the work accomplished at its fifty-first session, in particular with respect to the topic “Jurisdictional immunities of States and their property” and the completion of the second reading of the draft articles on nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States, noting that the Commission had completed its work on the topic “Nationality in relation to the succession of States”; drew the attention of Governments to the importance for the International Law Commission of having their views on all the specific issues identified in chapter III of its report; reiterated its invitation to Governments to submit comments and observations in writing by 1 January 2000 on the draft articles on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities) and requested the Commission to resume consideration of the liability aspects of the topic as soon as the second reading of the draft articles on prevention was finalized; invited Governments to respond in writing by 1 March 2000 to the questionnaire on unilateral acts of States circulated on 30 September 1999; reiterated its invitation to Governments to submit the most relevant national legislation, domestic court decisions and State practice relevant to the topic “Diplomatic protection”; recommended that the Commission should continue its work on the topics in its current programme; took note of the consideration by the Commission of its long-term programme of work; encouraged the Commission to proceed with the selection of new topics for its next quinquennium; and recommended that the debate on the report of the International Law Commission at the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly commence on 23 October 2000 (resolution 54/111).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 15th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 17th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A), 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 24th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 23 October to 3 November 2000. At the Committee's 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Chairman of the International Law Commission introduced Chapters I (Introduction), II (Summary of work), III (Specific issues on which comments would be of particular interest to the Commission) and IV (State responsibility) of the Commission's report (A/55/10). The Chairman of the Commission subsequently introduced chapters V (Diplomatic protection) and VI (Unilateral acts of States) of the report at the Committee's 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 27 October 2000, and chapters VII (Reservations to treaties), VIII (International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities)) and IX (Other decisions and conclusions) at the Committee's 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 1 November 2000. Statements were made by the representatives of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia (on behalf of the Group of Rio), Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Egypt, Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries), France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway (on behalf of the Nordic Countries), Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa (on behalf of the Southern African Development Community), Spain, Sweden (on behalf of Nordic countries), Turkey, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Venezuela, and the observer delegation of Switzerland.

Regarding the topic State responsibility, all speakers complimented the Commission for the significant progress attained at its fifty-second session, in particular with regard to the completion by its Drafting Committee of the second reading of the draft articles on State responsibility. The Commission was encouraged to complete its work on the draft articles at its next session in 2001.

With regard to the provisions on countermeasures, support was expressed for the Commission's approach, viz. that countermeasures should be marginalized and resorted to only in exceptional cases. Several speakers stressed the need to subject the taking of countermeasures to strict limitations so as to prevent abuse. As such, countermeasures could only be resorted to as a measure of last resort, and where no mandatory system for the settlement of disputes exists. The suggestion was made that the provisions on countermeasures be entirely replaced by a saving clause. As to the provisions themselves, some delegations queried the recognition under international law of the duty to offer to negotiate before taking countermeasures. A preference was also expressed for a clearer indication of prohibited countermeasures. While support was expressed for the reinsertion of an article prohibiting countermeasures taking the form of "extreme economic or political coercion designed to endanger the territorial integrity or political independence of the State which committed the internationally wrongful act", others welcomed its deletion from the text as being implicit in the proportionality requirement. Opposing views were expressed regarding the de-linking of countermeasures from dispute settlement, with some preferring the text adopted on first reading. It was noted that the principle of proportionality, reflected in draft article 52, implied the existence of such third party assessment. Concern was also expressed over the concept of "collective countermeasures", which, as a tacit recognition of power politics in international relations, could lead to abuse. The taking of collective countermeasures by groups of States, on behalf of an injured State, outside the context of action by universal or regional international organizations, was opposed. Others urged limiting the right to take countermeasures to the State that was directly injured. It was further argued that the relationship between collective countermeasures and Chapter VII of the UN Charter was problematic; and that collective countermeasures raise the problem of the coordination between the States taking such measures.

Support was expressed for the proposed replacement of the concept of "State crimes" with the new category of "serious breaches of obligations owed to the international community as a whole". However, concerns were raised both as to the content of "serious" breaches and as regards the consequences of States committing such breaches. The concept of "serious breaches" was considered imprecise, representing de lege ferenda, and open to abuse. Others, however, found the new approach as an acceptable basis for a compromise. Still others pointed to the similarity between "crimes" and "serious breaches", and noted that the reference to the "international community" was too broad since it could include individuals and NGO's. It was suggested that the definition of serious breaches required further consideration in light of the relationship of the draft articles with the role of the Security Council in the collective security system. Other suggestions included providing examples of serious breaches in the draft articles, and that the Commission give further consideration to such concepts as "fundamental interests" and "erga omnes obligations". It was queried whether punitive damages were recognized under international law.

Several speakers urged the Commission to consider the matter of including a section on the settlement of disputes in the draft articles, while others welcomed its deletion. It was noted that the inclusion of such provisions would be essential if the draft articles were to take the form of a convention. It was also suggested that such provisions be considered at a later stage once the eventual form of the draft articles was decided upon.

With regard to the notion of injured State, speakers, while supporting a distinction between the States directly injured and other States with a legal interest, were uncertain about the criteria for such a distinction as well as the rights and obligations of the two categories of States provided in the draft articles. Caution was advised when distinguishing between the two categories of States, so as not recognize rights that did not exist in the current international system. It was also suggested that the Commission consider further the definition of an "injured State", and the limits of countermeasures taken by indirectly injured States, particularly those arising out of international humanitarian law and peremptory norms.

Concerning the obligation to offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, it was observed that in certain situations guarantees of non-repetition may entail the repeal of internal laws. Support was expressed for the depiction of restitution as the primary form of "full" reparation. Others considered satisfaction the only appropriate form of reparation for moral damage. Some speakers welcomed the insertion of a new provision on loss of profits, as well as a separate provision on loss of profits. The Commission was also requested to provide more specific guidelines concerning the determination of the amount of indemnification.

As to the final form of the draft articles, opposing views were expressed regarding the adoption of the draft articles in the form of a multilateral treaty. Other suggestions included the adoption of a General Assembly resolution, or declaration, which was considered by some to be an interim step towards the eventual adoption of a binding instrument; or the adoption of a resolution taking note of the State responsibility articles as a "restatement of international law" to achieve the greatest practical effect on actual State practice.

With regard to the topic Diplomatic protection, several speakers stressed that diplomatic protection was the discretionary right of the State, and not of the individual, despite some constitutional requirements granting such a right to nationals. The Commission was urged to confine the topic to technical and procedural issues. Others advised separating human rights issues from diplomatic protection, and not extending diplomatic protection to refugees and stateless persons. Still others supported the extension of diplomatic protection to stateless persons and refugees in exceptional circumstances. While support was also expressed for the extension of the topic to legal persons as well, others preferred to limit the topic to natural persons.

The view was expressed that use of force issues fell outside the scope of the topic, and it was suggested that a provision be included explicitly prohibiting the use of force in diplomatic protection. Others did not exclude the possibility of the use of force in extreme cases. It was suggested that the requirement of an effective link in the Nottebohm judgement was incongruent with contemporary State practice, as demonstrated by the Iran-US Claims Tribunal. Others suggested the elaboration of a clear definition of "effective link" in the draft articles. Several delegations agreed that in cases of multiple nationality any State of nationality could exercise diplomatic protection. Others were of the view that a genuine link was required between the State and the national.

Some speakers found the proposal that in the case of multiple nationalities, diplomatic protection may be exercised by one of the States of nationality against another State of nationality to be inconsistent with article 4 of The Hague Convention of 1930, while others supported the proposition in the absence of a genuine link between the individual and the latter State. On the conditions for the exercise of diplomatic protection, the view was expressed that the exhaustion of local remedies and injury were essential preconditions to diplomatic protection and that, in addition, in examining the exhaustion of local remedies availability of other dispute settlement mechanisms to which individuals have direct access should be taken into account.

As regards the topic of International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, support was expressed for avoiding any substantive changes to the draft articles on prevention, which had previously been approved by States. It was also suggested that the draft articles cover harm to the global commons. The view was also expressed that the principle of prevention should contain clear references to international law. Different views were expressed regarding the inclusion of provisions on the settlement of disputes in the draft articles. It was suggested that some adaptation of the text was required in order to adequately reflect its likely status as a framework convention. Others felt that the draft articles could be adopted as guidelines or a set of procedural requirements. Several speakers stressed the interdependence between the issue of prevention and that of liability and called for the Commission to continue its work on the latter aspect. Others considered that the liability issue should be deferred since it was difficult to establish a general principle susceptible of application in all the various fields of international law. It was also suggested that international regulation in the area of liability ought to proceed in careful negotiations concerned with particular topics or with particular regions.

Concerning the topic on Reservations to treaties, the view was expressed that the draft guidelines (such as those on the distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations, alternatives to reservations and late reservations) would be very useful to States and would fill certain lacunae of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties without affecting the regime established thereby. The view was expressed that the guidelines struck a balance between the substance of the Vienna regime and the accumulated practice of States. Others doubted the practical utility of the Guide to Practice, describing them as being overly elaborate.

While some speakers felt that the consideration and analysis of alternatives to reservations was useful and important for State practice, others thought that they fell outside the scope of the topic, and underlined the need for more precise criteria to distinguish them from reservations. Regarding the issue of late reservations, several delegations supported the practice of their unanimous acceptance, as well as the extension by the Secretary-General, as depositary, of the period allowed for objections thereto to 12 months. Others, while agreeing with the approach adopted by the Commission, expressed their concern over possible abuses and hoped that the Commission would reconsider the issue. Still others advocated a distinction between such reservations adding new limitations and others reducing limitations. Concerning the related question of modifications to reservations, it was pointed out that they could constitute not only a withdrawal but also new late reservations and, in such a case, they should be treated accordingly. It was suggested that the distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations should be based on their effects. Doubts were expressed as to conditional interpretative declarations. Some speakers thought that conditional interpretative declarations could be identified with reservations, and suggested a study of the legal consequences of conditional interpretative declarations, as well as of the role of the depository. Others advocated the adoption of guidelines by the ILC prohibiting conditional interpretative declarations which have the same effects as reservations. Others expressed the wish that the Commission tackle the question of the permissibility of reservations and the legal effects of objections thereto, including in the case of human rights treaties. It was also hoped that the Commission would find a satisfactory solution on the issue of the competence of human rights bodies to comment on the admissibility of reservations.

On Unilateral acts of States, it was suggested that the emphasis on the topic should be on progressive development rather than codification, with some speakers expressing doubts about the suitability of the topic for codification, especially in light of the practical difficulties in obtaining materials on State practice. It was also proposed that the kind of unilateral acts with which the topic should be concerned are non-dependent acts in the sense that its legal effects are not pre-determined by customary or conventional law. Some felt that it was too early to structure the draft articles around a distinction between general rules applicable to all acts and specific rules applying to individual categories of acts. It was suggested that it might be more appropriate to develop first specific rules for each category of act and later to obtain the rules which might be generally applicable. In terms of a further view, general rules should be developed first and specific rules at a later stage. Others stressed the need for more practice of States to be taken into account, as well as the need to differentiate between the different categories of acts.

It was suggested that a provision on the incapacity of the State formulating a unilateral act negatively affecting the right of third States be included. Support was expressed for a restrictive criterion concerning the persons who can bind the State unilaterally. Some questioned the proposition that a violation of a norm of fundamental importance of the law of the author State may lead to the invalidity of a unilateral act. It was further suggested that the Commission should also address the question of unilateral legislative acts of certain States which purport to have extraterritorial effects on other States. Furthermore, a more careful distinction between unilateral acts and agreements other than treaties was advocated.

Several speakers endorsed the Commission's recommendations concerning further work on the topic contained in paragraph 621 (a), (b) and (c) of the Report. Governments were encouraged to submit to the Secretariat materials on their practice relating to unilateral acts.

Various remarks were made relating to the long-term programme of work. While support was expressed for the proposed topics relating to the "responsibility of international organizations" and the "effect of armed conflict on treaties", differing views were expressed relating to the suitability of the proposed topic entitled "risks ensuing from the fragmentation of international law".


Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 30th meeting, on 15 November, the representative of Colombia introduced a draft resolution entitled “Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-second session” (A/C.6/55/L.6 and Corr.1). At the same meeting, the Committee also had before it a statement of the programme budget implications of draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.6 and Corr.1, submitted by the Secretary-General in accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly (A/C.6/55/L.21). Also at the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.6 and Corr.1 without a vote. Before the adoption of the draft resolution, the representative of Chile made a statement in explanation of position (see A/C.6/55/SR.30 (E, F, S, R, C, A)).

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/609)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-sixth session (2001)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

At its fifty-fourth session, in 1999, the General Assembly, under the item entitled “Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first session”, considered chapter IV of the report of the Commission, which contained the final draft articles on nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States. The Assembly, noting that the Commission had recommended the draft articles to the General Assembly for their adoption in the form of a declaration, decided to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fifth session an item entitled “Nationality of natural persons in relation to succession of States”, with a view to the consideration of the draft articles and their adoption as a declaration at that session; and invited Governments to submit comments and observations on the question of a convention on the topic, with a view to the General Assembly considering the elaboration of such a convention at a future session (resolution 54/112).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 31st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 16 November 2000, at which time the coordinator of the informal consultations on the topic reported that there was significant support amongst delegates for the adoption of a declaration, but that on the other hand a number of delegates preferred to take a less decisive step at that stage. Some support had also been expressed for the adoption of a convention in due course.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 31st meeting, on 16 November, the representative of Ecuador introduced a draft resolution entitled “Nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States” (A/C.6/55/L.16). At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.16 without a vote. Before the adoption of the draft resolution, the representative of Slovenia made a statement in explanation of position (see A/C.6/55/SR.31 (E, F, S, R, C, A)).

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/610)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-ninth session (2004)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

The Committee on Relations with the Host Country was established by the General Assembly at its twenty-sixth session, in 1971 (resolution 2819 (XXVI)). The Committee is currently composed of the following 19 Member States: Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, France, Honduras, Hungary, Iraq, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mali, Russian Federation, Senegal, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America.

At its fifty-fourth session, the General Assembly, inter alia, endorsed the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country contained in paragraph 43 of its report; considered that the maintenance of appropriate conditions for the normal work of the delegations and the missions accredited to the United Nations was in the interest of the United Nations and all Member States, and requested the host country to continue to take all measures necessary to prevent any interference with the functioning of missions; expressed its appreciation for the efforts made by the host country, and hoped that the issues raised at the meetings of the Committee would continue to be resolved in a spirit of cooperation and in accordance with international law; noted that during the reporting period the travel controls previously imposed by the host country on staff of certain missions and staff members of the Secretariat of certain nationalities remained in effect, and requested the host country to consider removing such travel controls, and in that regard noted the positions of affected States, of the Secretary-General and of the host country; requested the host country to continue to take steps to resolve the problem relating to the parking of diplomatic vehicles in a fair, balanced and non-discriminatory way, with a view to responding to the growing needs of the diplomatic community, and to continue to consult with the Committee on that important issue; and requested the Secretary-General to remain actively engaged in all aspects of the relations of the United Nations with the host country (resolution 54/104).

At the same session, the General Assembly took note of the appointment by the President of the Assembly, in accordance with paragraph 2 of resolution 53/104, of Malaysia as a member of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country (decision 54/311).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Chairman of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country introduced the report of the Committee (A/55/26 ) at the Sixth Committee's 30th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 15 November 2000. Statements were made by the representatives of France (on behalf of the European Union), Cuba, Russian Federation, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United States.

All speakers noted the Host Country's efforts to accommodate the needs, interests and requirements of the diplomatic community. Several speakers, inter alia, urged the host country to ensure the issuance of entry visas in a timely manner, remove the remaining travel restrictions and take steps in order to resolve the parking problem in a fair, non-discriminatory manner, consistent with international law. One speaker expressed its desire to become a member of the Host Country Committee, and requested that the appropriate measures be taken with a view to unfreezing funds in the host country's banks. The host country stressed its commitment to continue to fully honour its obligations under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the 1947 Headquarters Agreement, and expressed its appreciation to members of the Host Country Committee for their cooperation and constructive spirit.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 30th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 15 November, the representative of Cyprus, on behalf of Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire and Cyprus, subsequently joined by France and Spain, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country” (A/C.6/55/L.9). At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.9 without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/611) and Corr.1 only

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-sixth session (2001)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

At its forty-ninth session, in 1994, the General Assembly, noting that the International Law Commission had adopted a draft statute for an international criminal court and recommended that an international conference of plenipotentiaries be convened to conclude a convention on the establishment of such a court, established an ad hoc committee to review the draft statute and consider arrangements for the convening of the conference (resolution 49/53).

At its fiftieth session, the General Assembly established the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (resolution 50/46). The Assembly reaffirmed the mandate of the Preparatory Committee at its fifty-first session and decided that a diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries should be held in 1998, with a view to finalizing and adopting a convention (resolution 51/207). The Assembly continued its consideration of the item at its fifty-second session (resolution 52/160).

At its fifty-third session, the General Assembly, inter alia, called upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; requested the Secretary-General to convene the Preparatory Commission, in accordance with resolution F adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, from 16 to 26 February, 26 July to 13 August and 29 November to 17 December 1999, to carry out the mandate of that resolution and, in that connection, to discuss ways to enhance the effectiveness and acceptance of the Court (resolution 53/105).

At its fifty-fourth session, the General Assembly renewed the mandate of the Preparatory Commission and, inter alia, called upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and encouraged efforts aimed at promoting awareness of the results of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court and of the provisions of the Statute; requested the Secretary-General to convene the Preparatory Commission, in accordance with resolution F adopted by the Conference, from 13 to 31 March, 12 to 30 June and 27 November to 8 December 2000; encouraged States to make voluntary contributions to the trust funds established pursuant to Assembly resolutions 51/207 and 52/160 towards meeting the costs of the participation in the work of the Commission of the least developed countries and of those developing countries not covered by the trust fund established pursuant to Assembly resolution 51/207; and requested the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its fifty-fifth session on the implementation of the present resolution (resolution 54/105).

The Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court met at United Nations Headquarters from 13 to 31 March 2000. It will meet again from 12 to 30 June and 27 November to 8 December 2000.

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 9th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 18 to 20 October 2000, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of France (on behalf of the European Union and Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia), Colombia (on behalf of the Rio Group), Lesotho (on behalf of the Southern African Development Community), China, United States of America, Sierra Leone, Islamic Republic of Iran, Canada, South Africa Norway, the Republic of Korea, San Marino, Kenya, Cuba, Russian Federation, Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of CARICOM), Ghana, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Fiji, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cambodia, Angola, Chile, Ecuador, Argentina, Venezuela, Nigeria, Guinea, Israel, Philippines, Burkina Faso, Syrian Arab Republic, Botswana, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Japan and Croatia, Mongolia, Uganda, Thailand, Egypt, Bangladesh, Sudan, Pakistan, New Zealand (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum), Liechtenstein, Ukraine and Bolivia. Uganda also spoke in exercise of the right of reply. The Observers for Switzerland and the International Committee of Red Cross also made statements.

Several speakers noted that the International Criminal Court would be a powerful instrument for dealing with, and preventing war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, and expressed their commitment to the maintenance of the integrity of the Statute. In terms of a further view, means had to be found to preclude the automatic surrender to the Court of official personnel of a non-State party willing to and capable of exercising complementarity with respect to its own personnel. It was hoped that the forthcoming session of the Preparatory Commission would resolve the issue, since a negative result at that session might reduce the ability of non-States parties to participate in certain types of military contingencies having critical humanitarian implications. Others felt that any exemption or immunity for any particular State would be inconsistent with the Statute, and it was pointed out that the Statute provided for protection against biased or arbitrary prosecutions and for procedural safeguards, including for the protection of sensitive military or other operations.

All the speakers expressed satisfaction with the conclusion, by general agreement, of the finalized draft texts for the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of Crimes, which are subordinate to the Statute. They encouraged States to continue negotiations on the remaining items on the Preparatory Commission's mandate, including the financial rules, the headquarters agreement, and the agreement on immunities and privileges of the Court, in a constructive and cooperative atmosphere with a view to attaining universal support for the Court. The importance of avoiding any modification of the Rome Statute through other related agreements was likewise emphasized, and several speakers stressed that only an independent and impartial Court could garner the support of all States. States were encouraged to make voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund for developing countries, in addition to that for the least developed countries, in order to allow wider participation in the Preparatory Commission. Some delegations expressed support for the proposal that the Commission hold two sessions of two weeks each in 2001.

It was noted that the quick pace of ratifications of the Statute was clear proof of the international community's commitment to the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Delegations also noted, as significant, the adoption, by consensus, of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Elements of Crime and the increasing number of signatures and ratifications, with the Millennium Summit providing further impetus. Some delegations continued to indicate the steps being taken, at national or regional levels, to sign, ratify or implement the Statute. In this connection, various ways and means to assist States in preparing national implementing legislation and promoting ratification of the Statute were suggested. Support was also expressed for the provision of technical assistance, including the establishment of a trust fund to assist States in the adoption implementing legislation.

Support was expressed for the continuation of the work by the Preparatory Commission on the crime of aggression. Several delegations emphasized the importance of providing a legal definition for the crime of aggression, which, in their view, would enhance the credibility and the general acceptance of the Court. Some delegations stressed that General Assembly resolution 3414 should be the point of departure. At the same time, caution was suggested so as not to "bypass" the prerogative of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations through such a definition. Still others expressed concern about a proposal that would involve a determination by the Security Council, a political body, as a pre-condition for the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction in the case of aggression. While accepting the reality that the Security Council has a role under the Charter, the point was made that any acceptable formula should aim at avoiding politicization and paralysis of the court. In this connection, it was suggested that the debate on the definition should be intensified, and that the issue of the crime of aggression merited being given priority over the other pending issues in the Preparatory Commission's agenda.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 30th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 15 November, the representative of the Netherlands introduced a draft resolution entitled “Establishment of the International Criminal Court” (A/C.6/55/L.11). At the same meeting, the Secretary of the Committee made a statement regarding the financial implications of the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.11 without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/612)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-sixth session (2001)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

The item entitled “Need to consider suggestions regarding the review of the Charter of the United Nations” was included in the agenda of the twenty-fourth session of the General Assembly, in 1969, at the request of Colombia (A/7659).

At its twenty-ninth session, the General Assembly decided to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on the Charter of the United Nations to consider, inter alia, any specific proposals that Governments might make with a view to enhancing the ability of the United Nations to achieve its purposes as well as other suggestions for the more effective functioning of the United Nations that might not require amendments to the Charter (resolution 3349 (XXIX)).

Meanwhile, another item, entitled “Strengthening of the role of the United Nations with regard to the maintenance and consolidation of international peace and security, the development of cooperation among all nations and the promotion of the rules of international law in relations between States”, was included in the agenda of the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly at the request of Romania (A/8792).

At its thirtieth session, the General Assembly considered the report of the Ad Hoc Committee together with the item on the strengthening of the role of the United Nations. At that session, the Assembly decided to reconvene the Ad Hoc Committee as the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization to examine suggestions and proposals regarding the Charter and the strengthening of the role of the United Nations with regard to the maintenance and consolidation of international peace and security, the development of cooperation among all nations and the promotion of the rules of international law (resolution 3499 (XXX)).

Since its thirtieth session, the General Assembly has reconvened the Special Committee every year and considered its successive reports (resolutions 31/28, 32/45, 33/94, 34/147, 35/164, 36/123, 37/114, 38/141, 39/88, 40/78, 41/83, 42/157, 43/170, 44/37, 45/44, 46/58, 47/38, 48/36, 49/58, 50/52, 51/209, 52/161, 53/106 and 53/107).

At its fiftieth session, the General Assembly decided that the Committee should henceforth be open to all States Members of the United Nations and that it would continue to operate on the basis of the practice of consensus (resolution 50/52).

At its fifty-fourth session, the General Assembly, inter alia, requested the Special Committee, at its session in 2000: (a) to continue its consideration of all proposals concerning the question of the maintenance of international peace and security and, in that context, to consider other proposals relating to the maintenance of international peace and security already submitted or which might be submitted to the Special Committee at its session in 2000; (b) to continue to consider on a priority basis the question of the implementation of the provisions of the Charter related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions; (c) to continue its work on the question of the peaceful settlement of disputes between States and its consideration of proposals relating to the question; (d) to continue to consider proposals concerning the Trusteeship Council; and (e) to continue to consider, on a priority basis, ways and means of improving its working methods; commended the Secretary-General for his continued efforts to reduce the backlog in the publication of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, and endorsed his efforts to eliminate the backlog in the publication of the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council; invited the Special Committee at its session in 2000 to continue to identify new subjects for consideration in its future work, to discuss how to offer its assistance to the working groups of the General Assembly in that field and, in that regard, to consider ways and means of improving coordination between the Special Committee and other working groups dealing with the reform of the Organization; and requested the Special Committee to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at its fifty-fifth session (resolution 54/106).

At the same session, the General Assembly, inter alia, renewed its invitation to the Security Council to consider the establishment of further mechanisms or procedures for consultations under Article 50 of the Charter with third States which were or might be confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of preventive or enforcement measures imposed by the Council under Chapter VII of the Charter; welcomed the further measures taken by the Council aimed at increasing the effectiveness and transparency of the sanctions committees, invited the Council to implement those measures, and strongly recommended that it continue its efforts to further enhance the functioning of those committees, to streamline their working procedures and to facilitate access to them by representatives of States referred to above; requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the competent units within the Secretariat develop the adequate capacity and appropriate modalities, technical procedures and guidelines to continue to collate and coordinate information about international assistance available to third States, to continue developing a possible methodology for assessing the adverse consequences actually incurred by third States and to explore innovative and practical measures of assistance to such States; welcomed the report of the Secretary-General containing a summary of the deliberations and main findings of the ad hoc expert group meeting on developing a methodology for assessing the consequences incurred by third States and on exploring innovative and practical measures of international assistance to such States, and invited States and relevant international organizations within and outside the United Nations system that had not yet done so to provide their views regarding the above-mentioned report; requested the Secretary-General to present to the Assembly his views regarding the report of the ad hoc expert group meeting and to provide the relevant information on other developments in that context; decided to transmit the most recent report of the Secretary-General on the topic to the Economic and Social Council at its substantive session of 2000; invited the organizations of the United Nations system, international financial institutions, other international organizations, regional organizations and Member States to address more specifically and directly special economic problems of third States affected by sanctions; requested the Special Committee, at its session in 2000, to consider on a priority basis the question of the implementation of the provisions of the Charter related to assistance to affected third States; decided to consider, within the Sixth Committee, or if necessary within its working group, at the fifty-fifth session of the Assembly, further progress in the elaboration of effective measures aimed at the implementation of provisions of the Charter related to assistance to third States affected by sanctions; and requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the resolution to the Assembly at its fifty-fifth session (resolution 54/107).

The Special Committee met at United Nations Headquarters from 10 to 19 April 2000.

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 5th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 6th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 7th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 11, 12 and 13 October 2000, respectively. The Chairman of the 2000 session of the Special Committee introduced its report (A/55/33) at the 5th meeting. Statements were made by the representatives of France (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Namibia (on behalf of Southern African Development Community), Costa Rica, China, Hungary, Guatemala, the Russian Federation, Egypt, Cuba, India, Iraq, Republic of Korea, Colombia (on behalf of Rio Group), Ghana, Brazil, Indonesia, Libya, Bulgaria, Turkey, Belarus, Bahrain, Algeria, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Uganda, Nigeria, Croatia, Cameroon, Haiti, Qatar, Syria, Morocco, Japan, Sierra Leone, United States of America, Ukraine, Tunisia, Sudan and Pakistan.

Most delegations stressed the importance they attached to the question of assistance to third States affected by sanctions. They recalled paragraph 9 of the Millenium Declaration (Res. 55/2 of 8 September 2000), in which member States resolved to "minimize the adverse effects of United Nations economic sanctions on innocent populations, to subject such sanctions regimes to regular reviews and to eliminate the adverse effects of sanctions on third parties". Delegations welcomed the report of the Secretary-General on the matter (A/55/295 and Add. 1). Some reiterated the view that sanctions should be an exceptional measure to be taken only when all other means of peaceful settlement of disputes have been exhausted. Several delegations informed the Committee of the concrete adverse consequences which sanctions had on the civilian population of their respective States. Support was expressed for the findings of the ad-hoc expert group meeting on the subject. However, a point was made that the views of the Secretary-General on the experts' suggestions should be received by the Committee prior to a substantive debate on their recommendations. A need to further clarify some of the recommendations was also underscored. It was suggested that the Committee should focus on recommendations enjoying wide support and to propose to the Sixth Committee to endorse those recommendations. Particular reference was made to the need to establish a permanent mechanism within the United Nations system (including a fund) to monitor the humanitarian, social and economic effects of sanctions on third States with a view to alleviating the burden borne by them due to sanctions against the target States. Some delegations underscored the responsibility of the Security Council to act without delay in response to applications by States under Article 50 of the Charter. Others expressed support for the application of targeted sanctions, as well as for the initiative concerning the improvement of the regime of embargo of weapons and of travel limitations. Several delegations expressed support for the discussion of this question within the context of a working group of the Sixth Committee. It was stressed that the establishment of an informal working group by the Security Council should not prevent the General Assembly or its subsidiary bodies from discussing the matter.

Support was expressed for the proposal by the Russian Federation on basic conditions and criteria for the introduction of sanctions and other coercive measures and their implementation. The point was made that the issue of sanctions should be considered in the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee. It was observed that sanctions should be used only as a last resort, should avoid impacting adversely on humanitarian needs and being used as tools of unlawful political pressure, should be based on a proper legal framework and transparent procedures and be defined in time. The point was made that the use of double standards by the Security Council in the imposition and application of sanctions weakened the sanctions regime. Several delegations, however, cautioned against duplication of work being undertaken by other bodies and suggested that the Special Committee concentrate on more productive and practical efforts.

While support was expressed for the proposal by the Russian Federation on the legal basis for peacekeeping operations, concern was voiced at the undesirable duplication of work of other United Nations bodies in this respect. The point was also made that any future consideration of the issue should take into account the Brahimi report (A/55/305-S/2000/809).

While some support was expressed for the proposal 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 without the proper authorization of the Security Council outside the context of self-defence, delegations continued to express divergent views. It was argued that humanitarian intervention was necessary where fundamental principles of international humanitarian law were violated. In terms of another view, humanitarian intervention was considered inconsistent with the Charter.

Concerning the future role of the Trusteeship Council, while the view was expressed in favour of its abolition, support was also expressed for not abolishing or changing its mandate, since that would entail a revision of the Charter which should be dealt in the overall context of United Nations reform. The point was also made that the Council should remain until all non-self-governing territories become autonomous. Interest was also expressed in having the Council reconstituted as the guardian of the common heritage of mankind.

Support was expressed for the revised informal working paper submitted by Sierra-Leone and the United Kingdom concerning the establishment of a dispute prevention and early settlement service. Interest was also expressed in the Cuban proposal on the strengthening of the role of the Organization and enhancing its effectiveness. Libya reiterated its position outlined in its proposal on the strengthening of the role of the Organization in the maintenance of international peace and security.

As regards 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/55/340), the speakers expressed concern about the existing backlog and supported the efforts undertaken by the Secretariat. Support was expressed for the establishment of a special training and internship programme, as well as for extending the duration of internship from 2 to 4-6 months. The establishment of the Trust Fund to assist in the preparation of the Repertoire was also welcomed. It was pointed out that the number of the Secretariat staff members involved in the preparation of the Repertoire of Practice of the Security Council was insufficient which resulted in the fact that, in spite of the recent increase in the activities of the Security Council, the publication did not provide a complete coverage of such activities.

While there was general agreement that the working methods of the Special Committee needed improvement, and support was expressed for the Japanese initiative, views differed on how to accomplish such improvements.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 33rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 17 November, the representative of Egypt introduced a draft resolution entitled “Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization” (A/C.6/55/L.7), andorally revised it. At the same meeting, the Chairman made a statement concerning operative paragraph 3 (b) of the draft resolution (see A/C.6/55/SR.33). Also at the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.7, as orally revised, without a vote. The representative of Colombia made a statement in explanation of position after the adoption of the draft resolution (see A/C.6/55/SR.33).

At the 8th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 16 October, the representative of the Russian Federation, on behalf of Bulgaria, 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.6/55/L.3). At the 33rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 17 November, the representative of Nigeria 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.6/55/L.3/Rev.1), which he orally revised. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.3/Rev.1, as orally revised, without a vote. The representative of Hungary made a statement in explanation of position after the adoption of the draft resolution (see A/C.6/55/SR.33 (E, F, S, R, C, A) ).

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/613) and Corr.1

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-sixth session (2001)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

This item was included in the agenda of the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly, in 1972, further to an initiative of the Secretary-General (A/8791 and Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1). At that session, the Assembly decided to establish the Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism, consisting of 35 members.

The Ad Hoc Committee met at United Nations Headquarters in 1973, 1977 and 1979 and reported to the General Assembly at its twenty-eighth, thirty-second and thirty-fourth sessions.

Between 1979 and 1998, the General Assembly adopted 12 resolutions and one decision under this item, namely, resolutions 34/145, 36/109, 40/61, 42/159, 44/29, 46/51, 49/60, 50/53, 51/210, 52/164, 52/165 and 53/108; and decision 48/411.

At its fifty-fourth session, the General Assembly, inter alia, decided that the Ad Hoc Committee established by Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 should continue to elaborate a draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism with a view to completing the instrument, should address means of further developing a comprehensive legal framework of conventions dealing with international terrorism, including considering the elaboration of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism, and should address the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations to formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations; decided also that the Ad Hoc Committee should meet from 14 to 18 February 2000, 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 that it should address the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations to formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and that the work should continue, including beginning consideration with a view to the elaboration of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism within a comprehensive legal framework of conventions dealing with international terrorism, during the fifty-fifth session of the Assembly from 25 September to 6 October 2000, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee, and that the Ad Hoc Committee should be convened in 2001 to continue its work; and requested the Ad Hoc Committee to report to the Assembly at its fifty-fifth session on progress made in the implementation of its mandate (resolution 54/110).

The Ad Hoc Committee met at United Nations Headquarters from 14 to 18 February 2000.

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

Working Group

The General Assembly, in its resolution 54/110 of 9 December 1999, inter alia, decided that the Ad Hoc Committee established pursuant to resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 should meet from 14 to 18 February 2000, 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 that it should address the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations to formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It further recommended that the work should continue, including beginning consideration with a view to the elaboration of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism within a comprehensive legal framework of conventions dealing with international terrorism, during the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly from 25 September to 6 October 2000, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee. Accordingly, the Sixth Committee, at its 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 25 September 2000, established such a Working Group and elected Mr. Rohan Perera (Sri Lanka) as its Chairman.

The Sixth Committee also decided, at its 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, to open the Working Group to all States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). At its 1st meeting, on 25 September 2000, the Working Group decided to invite the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to participate in its discussions as an observer. At its 5th meeting, on 27 September 2000, the Working Group extended a similar invitation to the representatives of the Commonwealth Secretariat, the European Union (EU), the League of Arab States and the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

The Working Group held 9 meetings, from 25 September to 6 October 2000. It had before it the report of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee (A/C.6/53/L.4) containing a revised text of the draft convention on the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism prepared by the Friends of the Chairman (annex I); the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the work of its fourth session, as well as the working document submitted by India entitled "Draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism" (A/C.6/55/1). The Working Group also had before it oral and written proposals submitted during its meetings. The report of the Working Group was considered and adopted at its 9th meeting, held on 6 October 2000.

On the question of nuclear terrorism, at the 1st meeting of the Working Group, held on 25 September 2000, the Chairman observed that the coordinator for the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, Ms. Cate Steains (Australia), had continued to conduct consultations, during the intersessional period, on the outstanding issues and that further, broader, consultations might be required in the pursuit of a solution that would lead to the adoption of the convention. He also indicated that he would give Ms. Steains the necessary flexibility to continue such consultations during the session of the Working Group. He further pointed out that the completion of the work on the draft convention depended, primarily, on the political will to reach a compromise.

Regarding the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations to formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, the Chairman, at the 1st meeting of the Working Group, drew the attention of the delegates to the relevant parts of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee. He informed the meeting that he had not received any additional information on the matter and suggested that it might be useful to continue consultations so that the Working Group might have some concrete suggestions on how to proceed further. He invited all interested delegations to continue their efforts and to approach him with any proposals.

Concerning the question of the elaboration of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism within a comprehensive legal framework of conventions dealing with international terrorism, the delegation of India, at the 1st meeting of the Working Group, introduced the working document entitled "Draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism" (A/C.6/55/1), which was a revised version of the text previously presented by India at the fifty-first session of the General Assembly (A/C.6/51/6). The Working Group commenced its work on the elaboration of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism on the basis of the draft submitted by India. Discussions were held both in the Working Group and in informal consultations. The Working Group conducted a first reading of articles 1 to 22 and the preamble. Subsequently, the delegation of India prepared revised texts of articles 1, 3, 6, 8 and 11 (A/C.6/55/WG.1/CRP.8 and 17) and an informal revised revised text of article 2 (A/C.6/55/WG.1/CRP.35). Following the informal consultations, based on the above revised texts and other written and oral submissions, the delegation of India prepared a further revised text of articles 1, 3, 5, 8 and 11 and another informal revised text of article 2.

At its ninth meeting on 6 October 2000, the Working Group decided to refer the consideration of its report to the Sixth Committee. The Working Group decided, bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 54/110, to recommend to the Sixth Committee that the work continue on the elaboration of a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, building upon the work accomplished during the meetings of the Working Group. Also at its ninth meeting, the Working Group decided to recommend that the coordinator for the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism continue consultations on the draft convention and report to the Sixth Committee on those consultations.

Discussion in Plenary

The Chairman of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee on international terrorism introduced the Working Group's report (A/C.6/55/L.2 ) at the Committee's 27th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 13 November 2000. The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 27th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 28th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 29th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 30th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held from 13 to 15 November 2000.

Statements were made by the representatives of India, France (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Colombia (on behalf of the Rio Group), Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania (on behalf of the Southern African Development Community), the Russian Federation, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Morocco, Lao People's Democratic Republic (on behalf of ASEAN), Madagascar, China, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Pakistan, Iraq, Philippines, Slovakia, Saudi Arabia, Guatemala, Sudan, Lebanon, Uzbekistan (on behalf of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova), Maldives, Israel, Poland, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, Australia, Ethiopia, Belarus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria, Yemen, Bangladesh, Brazil, Kuwait, Fiji, New Zealand and Australia (as coordinator on the draft convention on nuclear terrorism

All speakers expressed their unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, stressed that terrorism was a threat to international peace and security and expressed support for the outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee. Concern was voiced by some delegations about State terrorism as being the most dangerous form of terrorism. A number of delegations drew the Committee's attention to specific instances of State-sponsored terrorism. Several speakers also noted that globalisation had given rise to new forms of terrorism, such as cyber-terrorism. States were urged to refrain from granting asylum to terrorists and not to allow their territories to be used as safe havens for terrorists. It was also underscored that measures aimed at combating terrorism should be conducted in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and relevant norms and rules of international law, in particular international human rights and humanitarian law. The Millennium Declaration and Security Council resolution 1269(1999) were also referred to. Some speakers listed the instruments to which they were party and the steps that they had taken to implement those instruments under national law. States that had not yet done so were urged to become party to the various international and regional conventions on terrorism. Concerning the draft resolution on this item during the current session, the view was expressed that reference needed to be made to General Assembly resolution 46/51.

General support was also expressed for the continuation of the elaboration of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. The point was also made, however, that consensus was still to be achieved in respect of such issues as the scope and definition of offences, the relationship of the draft convention with the existing conventions and the need for, and the content of, the annexes to the draft convention. Some delegations stressed that the future convention should complement and complete existing counter-terrorism conventions (primarily by filling gaps) rather than replacing, duplicating or undercutting them. Others were of the view that the instrument should be comprehensive in scope, containing a definition of terrorism making a clear distinction between terrorist acts and the legitimate struggle of peoples for national liberation from colonial and other forms of alien domination and foreign occupation, as well as covering all aspects of the problem of terrorism, including State terrorism and the activities of armed forces. However, the view was expressed that such an approach was contrary to international law and existing United Nations resolutions. It was further suggested that the proposed draft comprehensive convention should cover terrorist attacks against private as well as public facilities.

With regard to the draft international convention for the suppression of nuclear terrorism, several speakers favoured the speedy completion of the work on the draft convention as well as its adoption. It was suggested that the outstanding issues relating to the scope of the draft convention should be resolved as soon as possible. Support was expressed for the position of the Non-aligned Movement, viz. that the draft convention should not exclude the activities of the military forces of a State. The Coordinator on the draft convention reported that positions of delegations on the scope of this instrument remained divergent and that a number of delegations had expressed their preference to focus on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, since progress on the definition of terrorism would have a positive impact on the draft nuclear terrorism convention.

Support was expressed for the proposal to convene an international conference on terrorism under the auspices of the United Nations to formulate a joint, organized, response of the international community to terrorism. The point was made that, in order to be successful, the objectives and modalities of the conference had be carefully delineated. It was also suggested that the conference elaborate and adopt a comprehensive definition of terrorism. In terms of a further view, the conference should be convened only after the Ad hoc committee has completed the work on its agenda.

All speakers emphasized the importance of international cooperation in combating international terrorism, with some speakers noting the importance of acting in conformity with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. The need to focus on the practical aspects of inter-State cooperation, as well as cooperation at the regional and global levels, was also highlighted. The special role of the United Nations, including that of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the importance of regional and subregional efforts was emphasized. It was suggested that the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the Centre for International Crime Prevention in Vienna be designated the coordinating structure for United Nations activities in the field, as a centre for combating terrorism, and its staffing constraints be ameliorated.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 36th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 22 November, the representative of Canada introduced a draft resolution entitled “Measures to eliminate international terrorism” (A/C.6/55/L.17) and orally revised it. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.17, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 131 votes to none, with 2 abstentions. Before the adoption of the draft resolution, statements in explanation of vote were made by the representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic and Cuba; after the adoption of the draft resolution, statements in explanation of vote were made by the representatives of Lebanon, Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran (see A/C.6/55/SR.36). Statements were also made by the representatives of the United States of America, Cuba, Israel, the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon (see A/C.6/55/SR.36).

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/614)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-sixth session (2001)

Background (Source: A/55/100)

At its fifty-second session, in 1997, the General Assembly amended article 13 of the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and noted that it was convinced of the desirability of reviewing more generally the provisions of the Statute of the Tribunal at an early date (resolution 52/166).

At its fifty-third and fifty-fourth sessions, the General Assembly decided to include the item in the provisional agenda of its subsequent session (decisions 53/430 and 54/429).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 8th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 16 October 2000. Statements were made by the representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Mali, Sierra Leone, India, Cuba, Syria, Nigeria and Guatemala.

The United Kingdom, also on behalf of France and Ireland, introduced a written proposal containing a number of amendments to the Statute of United Nations Administrative Tribunal, namely to reflect in the Statute a requirement that the Tribunal's members have the requisite qualifications and experience, including legal qualifications and experience as appropriate; to increase the term of office of the members of the Tribunal from three years to four years with the possibility to be re-appointed once; to make provision in the Statute for cases raising a significant question of law to be referred for consideration by the whole Tribunal comprised of seven members, instead of a panel of three members; to make the Statute gender neutral by amending the pronouns "he" and "his" to read "he or she" and "his and her", respectively; and to substitute references in the Statute to "five official languages" with "six official languages". A further suggestion was made aimed at clarifying the amendment on referral of cases to the Tribunal as a whole.

Most speakers highlighted the importance of the Tribunal's work and expressed support for the proposed amendments to its Statute, and reference was made to the principle of equitable geographic distribution in appointing the members of the Tribunal. It was also noted that some of the amendments conformed with the recommendations outlined in the report by Joint Inspection Unit on Administration of Justice at the United Nations (A/55/57).

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 31st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 16 November, the representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on behalf of France, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Review of the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal” (A/C.6/55/L.18). At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.18 without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/615)

Observer Status of the Inter-American Development Bank in the General Assembly

Background

The item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly's fifty-fifth session on the request of a member State.

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 26th meeting, held on 10 November 2000. A statement was made by the representative of Brazil (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC)). It was observed that the Bank was the oldest and largest regional multilateral development institution, with a membership of 46 States, established to help accelerate economic and social development in Latin America and the Caribbean, focusing on the environment, the provision of technical assistance and eradication of poverty. In 1999 alone the bank disbursed loans totaling US$ 9.5 billion. Although, over the years, the bank had been invited to address the Second Committee on selected issues relating, particularly to the environment as well as economic and social development, on an ad hoc basis, the arrangement had become increasingly unworkable. The need to institutionalize the Bank's links with the United Nations was therefore stressed. Moreover, it was suggested that the granting of observer status in the General Assembly would be mutually beneficial to the two organizations. It was also noted that the African Development Bank, a similar institution, already had observer status in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 10 November, the representative of Brazil, on behalf of Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela, subsequently joined by France, Panama and Spain, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Observer status for the Inter-American Development Bank in the General Assembly” (A/C.6/55/L.13). Saint Vincent and the Grenadines withdrew as a sponsor of the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.13 without a vote (see para. 7).

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/616)

Observer Status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly

Background

The item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly's fifty-fifth session on the request of a member State.

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 26th meeting, held on 10 November 2000. Statements were made by the representatives of Sweden, China, Cuba, Russian Federation, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Pakistan, Algeria, South Africa, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Egypt, Portugal, Burkina Faso, Belgium, Guatemala, Greece, Denmark and Yemen.

It was noted that IDEA was an intergovernmental organization based on an international agreement between governments and that 19 States from different parts of the world were members. Several speakers supported the granting of observer status to IDEA. In their, IDEA was an "intergovernmental organization" within the meaning of decision 49/426. It was established by an intergovernmental agreement and carried out work that was relevant, and of interest, to the United Nations. The example was cited of the granting of observer status to IUCN. The view was expressed that the granting of observer status to IUCN should not be seen as a precedent as agreement was reached on the basis of the understanding that any future consideration of the issue of granting of observer status in the General Assembly would be considered by the Sixth Committee. Others expressed doubts as to the intergovernmental character of IDEA, noting that it was a "unique and novel" organization. It was noted that IDEA's membership includes not only States but also, albeit as associate members, non-governmental organizations, and that one of the main bodies of the Institute, the Council, was composed of one representative of each member and associate member, thus placing States and non-governmental organizations on an equal footing. It was further noted that the Institute was not purely financed by voluntary contributions from governments. It was therefore suggested that more time was needed to reflect and consider the matter more fully.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 32nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 16 November, the Chairman of the Committee introduced a draft decision entitled “Observer status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly” (A/C.6/55/L.14) and orally amended it. At its 33rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 17 November, the Committee adopted draft decision A/C.6/55/L.14, as orally amended, without a vote. The representative of Sweden made a statement on behalf of the States members of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (see A/C.6/55/SR.33).

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/617)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the fifty-sixth session (2001)

Observer Status for the Economic Community of Central African States in the General Assembly

Background

The item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly's fifty-fifth session on the request of a member State, and subsequently allocated to the Sixth Committee (see document A/C.6/55/3).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-fifth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 32nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 16 November 2000. Statements were made by the representatives of Equatorial Guinea (on behalf of the member States of the Economic Community of Central African States), Gabon, Cuba and France. All speakers supported the granting of observer status.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 32nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 16 November, the representative of Equatorial Guinea, on behalf of Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Ireland, subsequently joined by Chad, the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Guinea, Italy, Mauritania, Portugal, Sao Tome and Principe and Spain, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Observer status for the Economic Community of Central African States in the General Assembly” (A/C.6/55/L.20). At its 33rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 17 November, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/55/L.20 without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/55/648)

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

Copyright (c) 2000
United Nations