Sixth Committee (Legal) — 80th session

Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts (Agenda item 76)

«

Documentation

Summary of work

Background (source: A/80/100)

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly, under the item entitled “Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session”, considered chapter IV of the report of the Commission, which contained the draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, together with a recommendation that the Assembly take note of the draft articles and that it consider, at a later stage, the possibility of convening an international conference of plenipotentiaries to examine the draft articles with a view to concluding a convention on the topic. At the same session, the Assembly decided to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-ninth session an item entitled “Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts” (resolution 56/83).

At its seventy-seventh session, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to invite Governments to submit further written comments on any future action regarding the articles and to provide the Assembly, at its eightieth session, with a report on all procedural options based on precedents regarding actions taken on other products of the International Law Commission, without prejudice to the question of whether such possible action was appropriate, and took note of the discussions on procedural precedents for such action, including all views, comments and concerns expressed thereon. The Assembly also requested the Secretary-General to update once again the compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies referring to the articles and to invite Governments to submit information on their practice in that regard, and also requested the Secretary-General to submit that material well in advance of its eightieth session. The Assembly further requested the Secretary-General to update the technical report listing, in a tabular format, the references to the articles contained in the compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies referring to the articles prepared since 2001, and further requested the Secretary-General to submit such material during its eightieth session. The Assembly decided to include in the provisional agenda of its eightieth session the item entitled “Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts” and to further examine, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee and with a view to taking a decision, the question of a convention on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts or other appropriate action on the basis of the articles (resolution 77/97).

Consideration at the eightieth session

The Sixth Committee considered the issue at its 10th, 11th, 37th and 38th meetings, on 10 and 13 October, and 14 and 21 November 2025 (see A/C.6/80/SR.10, 11, 37, and 38).

Pursuant to resolution 77/97, the Committee decided, at its 1st meeting, on 6 October 2025, to establish a working group on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, in order to fulfil the mandate conferred by the General Assembly on the Committee, namely, to further examine, with a view to taking a decision, the question of a convention on the topic or other appropriate action on the basis of the articles drafted by the International Law Commission. At the same meeting, the Committee decided 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. The Working Group, which was chaired by Mr. Pedro Sloboda (Brazil), held three meetings, on 15 October, and 3 and 7 November 2025, respectively. At the 37th meeting of the Committee, on 14 November, the Chair of the Working Group presented an oral report on the work of the Working Group.

In plenary, Statements were made by the representatives of Cameroon (on behalf of the African Group), Colombia (on behalf of Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)), Guinea-Bissau (on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries (CPLP)), Finland (on behalf of the Nordic Countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden)), New Zealand (also on behalf of Canada and Australia (CANZ)), Egypt (also on behalf of Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Uganda and of the observer delegation of State of Palestine), Nigeria, Ireland, France, Czechia, Israel, the United States of America, Sierra Leone, Poland, South Africa, Slovenia, Republic of Korea, Germany, the Russian Federation, Egypt, Eritrea, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,   Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Uruguay, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Cameroon, Chile, China, Romania, Portugal, Algeria, Colombia, Togo, Singapore, Switzerland, Ukraine, Cuba, the Maldives, Greece, Slovakia, Italy, the observer of the Observer State of Palestine, and the representatives of Sudan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Cabo Verde, Lebanon, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Vanuatu and Costa Rica.

The representative of Israel spoke in the exercise of the right of reply.

In their general comments, delegations thanked the Secretary-General for his report on comments and information received from Governments (A/80/156), the updated compilation of decisions by international courts and tribunals (A/80/77) and the note on Procedural options regarding action taken on products of the International Law Commission (A/80/76). Delegations reiterated their appreciation for the work done by the International Law Commission on the codification and progressive development of this important topic, recalling the many years dedicated to its preparation and citing the draft articles as one of the most significant achievements of the Commission. The contribution of the final Special Rapporteur on the topic, Judge James Crawford, was also recalled. A number of delegations recalled that more than two decades had passed since the completion of the draft articles and noted that the draft articles had been frequently cited in the decisions of international courts and tribunals. However, some delegations noted that certain provisions had not been referred to or had been cited less frequently than others.

With regards to future steps to be taken on this issue, several delegations supported the negotiation of a convention on the basis of the articles while other delegations preferred to maintainthe articles in their current form. Some delegations recalled the possibility for the General Assembly to adopt the articles in the form of a declaration or resolution, emphasizing that such a step could reaffirm their authority while avoiding the risks associated with reopening negotiations. Delegations looked forward to constructive discussions within the working group and expressed their willingness to remain engaged on possible options for the progression of the articles. Several delegations proposed to increase the frequency of consideration of the topic to annually, or biennially to maintain the progress made in those discussions. Other delegations expressed satisfaction with the current frequency of consideration, or proposed to reduce it, arguing that a longer interval between discussions would allow sufficient time for new judicial decisions and State practice to develop.

The delegations that supported the negotiation of a convention based on the articles generally reiterated that the negotiation of a convention would ensure inclusiveness and equality among States, lead to increased legal certainty the crystallization of the norms on State responsibility, and the strengthening of the international rule of law and accountability, while addressing any remaining substantive issues. Delegations reiterated that the articles were balanced and methodical and would provide a good basis for the elaboration of a convention. Several delegations expressed the view that the incorporation of procedural safeguards, including mechanisms for dispute settlement and reparation, within a convention would increase certainty and preclude abuse of the articles. Some delegations highlighted that the failure by the Sixth Committee to act could signal disinterest by Member States, undermine the credibility of the work of the International Law Commission and of the Sixth Committee itself, and contribute to the fragmentation of the jurisprudence on the topic. Some delegations expressed the willingness to consider aspects of the topic outside the scope of the draft articles, including the possible incorporation of provisions on diplomatic protection. Some delegations also drew attention to the interlinkages between the topic of State responsibility and other areas of the work of the International Law Commission, such as the responsibility of international organizations, succession of States in respect of responsibility, and immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. A view was expressed that should a convention be pursued, it should aim at formalizing the draft articles as adopted by the International Law Commission, without modifying their substance or reopening agreed provisions.

A number of delegations expressed the view that the reiteration of the various positions of Member States on a potential convention was counterproductive. Some delegations addressed the need to define the scope and parameters of a diplomatic conference clearly. This was thought to  address the risk of diluting substantive articles that have been accepted through State practice, and to retain the careful balance struck within the articles. Several delegations expressed a desire to focus on procedural modalities that would allow constructive discussion of the articles in a pragmatic and inclusive manner, without putting their value into question. Several delegations voiced support for the role of the Working Group as a venue for discussion, and it was proposed that it could be forum for discussion of those articles that did not yet enjoy consensus. However, doubts were also expressed on the continued need for the working group. Several delegations suggested that, beyond the formal Working Group, informal consultations, intersessional meetings, issue-based or thematic discussions, and the submission of written statements on national practice and case law could provide additional opportunities to enrich the technical understanding of the articles. The importance of reaching any decision about the future of the articles by consensus was underscored. Some delegations highlighted a need to reflect on ways to enable technical exchanges of views on the work product of the International Law Commission, without reopening agreed provisions or questioning their value.

A number of delegations did not favour the negotiation of a convention at the time of the session, citing the risk of disturbing the careful balance struck within the articles, and the potential questioning or undermining of the articles during negotiations. Those delegations expressed their concern that potential negotiations could galvanize divergence among States and thus jeopardize the coherence the articles have sought to instil. Several delegations considered that a convention was unnecessary. Some delegations highlighted that the articles in their present form serve as an influential and widespread tool for governments and international courts and tribunals, and they largely reflected customary international law. Some delegations added that the acceptance of the articles would be wider when elaborated through State practice, rather than a convention.

Archived videos and summaries of plenary meetings

Video   10th meeting (10 October 2025, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary

Video   11th meeting (13 October 2025, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Video   37th meeting (14 November 2025, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Video   38th meeting (21 November 2025, 10:30am – 1:00pm) | Summary

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 38th meeting, on 21 November 2025, the representative of Brazil introduced, on behalf of the Bureau, the text of a draft resolution entitled “Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts” (A/C.6/80/L.18).

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/80/L.18 without a vote.

Under the draft resolution, the General Assembly would inter alia acknowledge the importance and usefulness of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts and commend them to the attention of Governments. It would request the Secretary-General to invite Governments to submit further written comments on any future action regarding the articles. It would acknowledge that a growing number of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies refer to the articles. It would further request the Secretary-General to update the technical report listing, in a tabular format, the references to the articles contained in the compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies referring to the articles prepared since 2001, and to submit such material in advance of its eighty-third session.

It would also request the Secretary-General to update the compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies referring to the articles and to invite Governments to submit information on their practice in this regard, and further request the Secretary-General to submit such material well in advance of its eighty-third session.

The General Assembly would acknowledge the constructive dialogue in the context of the working group of the Sixth Committee during the eightieth session of the General Assembly, and encourage all Member States to continue the substantive dialogue on an informal basis during the period prior to the eighty-third session of the Assembly, including on the basis of the procedural options note provided by the Secretary-General at the eightieth session of the General Assembly.

The General Assembly would encourage Member States to hold an informal commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the articles during the eighty-first session of the General Assembly. The General Assembly would recall the comments and information submitted by Governments, as well as the relevant reports by the Secretary-General.

Finally, the General Assembly would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its eighty-third session the item entitled “Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts” and to further examine, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee, at four meetings over consecutive days, and with a view to taking a decision, the question of a convention on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts or other appropriate action on the basis of the articles.

Subsequent action taken by the General Assembly

This agenda item will be considered at the eighty-third session (2028).

Quick Links

Key Documents

Resources