Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts

Background (Source: A/57/100)

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 biennially at its thirty-seventh to fifty-third sessions (resolutions 37/116, 39/77, 41/72, 43/161, 45/38, 47/30, 49/48, 51/155 and 53/96).

At its fifty-fifth session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Assembly at its fifty-seventh 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 55/148).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 7th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 2 October 2002. Statements were made by the representatives of Belarus, Switzerland, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic Countries), Cuba, Romania, Mexico, Sudan, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Jordan, Greece, Ukraine, Egypt and Venezuela. The representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross also spoke.

The speakers hailed the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Additional Protocols of 1977 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. They expressed satisfaction on the growing number of countries becoming parties to these instruments, and called for universal adherence to them. They further reiterated the need for the strict observance of their provisions and confirmed their strong commitment to them and to the principles and norms of international humanitarian law in general, and urged all States to reflect and implement them in their national legislations and guarantee their observance. They also noted the important role of the International Committee of the Red Cross in promoting humanitarian law and providing assistance to Governments concerning its implementation.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 22 October 2002, the representative of Sweden introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.17 entitled “Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts”. Malta joined as sponsor of the draft resolution.At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.17 without a vote. The representatives of Israel and Egypt made statements in explanation of position after the adoption of the draft resolution. Jordan also made a statement.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/559)

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

Background (Source: A/57/100)

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).

The General Assembly considered the item annually at its thirty-sixth to forty-third sessions, and biennially thereafter (resolutions 36/33, 37/108, 38/136, 39/83, 40/73, 41/78, 42/154, 43/167, 45/39, 47/31, 49/49, 51/156 and 53/97).

At its fifty-fifth session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to issue on an annual basis a report containing (a) 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; and (b) 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 (resolution 55/149).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 17th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 26 and 27 September, 18 and 22 October 2002, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of Cuba, Denmark (on behalf of the European Union), Burkina Faso, Morocco, Turkey, Norway (on behalf of the Nordic Countries), South Africa, Iran (Islamic Republic of) and Venezuela.

The speakers acknowledged the importance of the recent Secretary General's report on this item (A/57/99, Corr.1, Add.1 and Add.2). They noted with satisfaction the fact that since the previous report on the topic, 13 additional States became parties to the relevant international instruments and appealed to all States that are not yet parties to these instruments to become so, with a view to make them truly universal. They all voiced their concern and condemned the continuing acts of violence against the security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and their representatives. States pledged to continue to take all the necessary internal measures, as well as to respect their obligations under international law, in order to protect the diplomatic and consular missions and the representatives within their territories.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 17th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 18 October 2002, the representative of Finland introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.18 entitled “Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives”. It was announced that Suriname had joined as sponsor of the draft resolution. The Committee proceeded to adopt the draft resolution without a vote at its 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 22 October 2002. It was announced that Belize, Canada and Georgia had also joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/560 and Corr.1)

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

Background (Source: A/57/100)

At its forty-sixth session, in 1991, the General Assembly, recognizing the desirability of the conclusion of a convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, 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 to forty-ninth and fifty-second to fifty-fourth sessions (decisions 47/414 and 48/413 and resolutions 49/61, 52/151, 53/98 and 54/101).

At its fifty-fifth session, the General Assembly, having considered the report submitted by the Chairman of the open-ended working group of the Sixth Committee established under resolutions 53/98 and 54/101, decided to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (resolution 55/150).

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly decided that the Ad Hoc Committee should meet from 4 to 15 February 2002; requested the Secretary-General to make available to the Ad Hoc Committee the comments submitted by States in accordance with its resolution 49/61 and on the reports of the open-ended working group of the Sixth Committee established under resolutions 53/98 and 54/101; and requested the Ad Hoc Committee to report to the Assembly at its fifty-seventh session on the outcome of its work (resolution 56/78).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 22, 24, 31 October and 5 November 2002, respectively. At the 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee introduced its report (A/57/22). Statements were made by the representatives of Japan, Norway, Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, Iran (Islamic Rep. of), China, United Kingdom, Greece, Portugal, Australia, South Africa, United States of America, Morocco, Slovakia, Hungary, Russian Federation, Indonesia, Nepal and Myanmar.

Delegations welcomed the progress made by the Ad hoc Committee at its session, particularly in reducing the outstanding substantive issues from five to four and they stressed the importance of elaborating a generally acceptable text in a timely manner. Thus, in regard to the procedure for future work, delegations expressed support for the proposal to convene another session of the Ad Hoc Committee, for one week in Spring, to finalize work on the topic and to recommend the form that the instrument would take.

Regarding the criteria for determining the commercial character of the contract or transaction, some delegations expressed a preference for the nature test, while others in advocating flexibility pointed out that, in practice, there was no major difference between the nature and purpose test because in determining the nature text, other factors including the purpose of the contract are taken into account. In this connection, they preferred the alternative proposal by the Chairman, while others favoured it with modifications, including the deletion or clarification of "public service mission". Some other delegations expressed their wish for the deletion of the whole paragraph 2 of article 2 to facilitate further development of State practice.

In relation to the question of State enterprises, some delegations feared abuse of the provision through "under-capitalization" and therefore preferred its deletion; others observed that deletion would not obviate the problem that would arise with the absence of a clear proposition that a State enterprise does not in principle enjoy immunity. Yet others noted that since a State enterprise would form part of the definition of a State for the purposes of the draft articles, it would enjoy such immunity. It was also pointed out that the whole provision required drafting clarity. At the same time, it was noted that States should not be permitted to hide behind nominally separate state enterprises to shield themselves from liability.

Concerning contracts of employment, several delegations favoured a restrictive approach, while others, favouring a broader approach, noted that in some cases employees at lower levels were involved in sovereign activities. Some delegations also doubted the necessity of the whole provision in the light of the exclusionary article 3. Others noted that jurisdiction over contracts of employment should not permit local authorities to intrude into the internal workings of embassies and consulates, or to compromise diplomatic and consular immunities. A preference was also expressed for alternative B for paragraph 2 (a bis) of draft article 11, while noting that alternative A provided for unjustifiable categories of employees who would be able to claim immunity.

In relation to the measures of constraint against state property, some delegations viewed the nexus requirement in post judgement measures as setting a high threshold and therefore unnecessary. It was also pointed out that post-judgment measures of constraint should not be limited to property with a nexus to the claim or instrumentality that was the object of the original proceeding. Others called for the retention of the nexus requirement in post judgement measures.

Some delegations noted the need to include provisions in the draft articles relating to immunity for military action while others reserved their right to comment on other articles such as draft articles 13,14, 16, 17 and 18(c).

Concerning the future form of the instrument, some delegations favoured the elaboration of a convention, stressing the importance of establishing principles for domestic courts to apply. The clarity and predictability offered by such approach was underscored. Other delegations expressed their preference for a non-binding resolution or a declaration. Others noted that a model law offered the best possibility of achieving consistency and uniformity. It was also pointed out that the future form could only be determined after resolving the substantive issues. Support was also expressed for a "two stage" formula.

As to the forum for future action, some delegations favoured the convening of a diplomatic conference, others remained flexible ready to await the final outcome of discussions on the outstanding issues. As a compromise, some were willing to adopt a two-stage formula of adopting a draft resolution first adopting the articles as reflecting current practice while keeping the matter under review with a view to concluding a convention in future

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 31 October 2002, the Chairman introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.21 entitled “Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property”, on behalf of the Bureau.

The Secretary of the Committee made a statement at the 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 5 November 2002. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.21 without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/561)

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

Background (Source: A/57/100)

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 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)). (For the membership of the Commission, see A/56/17, para. 4.)

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly considered the report of the Commission on the work of its thirty-fourth session and requested the Secretary-General to adjust the terms of reference of the Commission's Trust Fund for Symposia to make it possible for the resources in the Trust Fund to be used also for the financing of training and technical assistance activities undertaken by the Secretariat (resolution 56/79).

At the same session, the General Assembly expressed its appreciation to the Commission for adopting the Model Law on Electronic Signatures and for preparing the Guide to Enactment of the Model Law, and recommended that all States give favourable consideration to the Model Law, together with the Model Law on Electronic Commerce, when they enacted or revised their laws (resolution 56/80).

The General Assembly also adopted and opened for signature or accession the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade and called upon all Governments to consider becoming party to the Convention (resolution 56/81).

It also decided to defer further consideration of and a decision on the enlargement of the Commission's membership to its fifty-seventh session (decision 56/422).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 4th (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) and 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 30 September, 17, 18, 22 and 24 October 2002, respectively. The Chairman of UNCITRAL presented its report (A/56/17) the Sixth Committee at that meeting. Statements were made by the representatives of Belarus, Austria, Iran (Islamic Republic of), United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), China, Uganda, the Russian Federation, Algeria, Canada, United States, Cyprus, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Australia, Morocco, Hungary, Nigeria, Kenya, India, Indonesia, France, Mexico, Venezuela, Fiji, Guatemala and Brazil.

The speakers welcomed the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation and underlined the importance of the Model Law in amicable non-judiciary settlement of commercial disputes at international and national levels. They also commended the Commission for the progress achieved in the working groups on arbitration, transport law, security interests, insolvency law, electronic commerce and privately financed infrastructure projects.

The work of UNCITRAL and its secretariat in providing training and technical assistance, especially for developing countries and countries in transition, as well as in the dissemination of texts adopted by the Commission was highly appreciated. However, it was noted that additional resources to ensure the effective continuation of that part of the Commission's mandate were needed. In this context, the speakers urged the states to contribute to the relevant trust funds of the Commission.

In the view of the speakers, the significant increase of the Commission's workload required the increase of human and financial resources of the Commission's secretariat. The Secretary-General was requested to take necessary steps to achieve that within the available resources. The reference in this regard was made to the respective recommendations contained in the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (A/AC.51/2002/5).

The speakers were also supportive of the idea to expand UNCITRAL membership with a view to make the Commission a more representative body reflective of all legal traditions and economic systems. However, divergent views were expressed as to the best composition and total number of the membership. While some States favoured the current distribution of seats among regional groups in the Commission and, therefore, proposed doubling the number of members, others felt that such an expansion might have negative impact on the work of the Commission and proposed a more moderate increase. Others felt that they were not adequately represented in the Commission and underscored that any distribution of seats in an expanded Commission should be based on the principle of equitable geographical distribution.

The Legal Counsel made a statement.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 17 October 2002, the representative of Austria introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.12 entitled “Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its thirty-fifth session”. It was announced that India, Madagascar and Suriname had joined as sponsors of the draft resolution. At the 17th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 18 October, the Chairman of the Sixth Committee announced that Djibouti and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia intended to join as sponsors of draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.12. At the same meeting, adopted draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.12 without a vote.

At the 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 17 October, the Chairman of the Sixth Committee introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.13, entitled “Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law”. The Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote at its 17th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 18 October 2002.

At the 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 17 October, the Chairman introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.14 entitled “Enhancing coordination in the area of international trade law and strengthening the secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law”, on behalf of the Bureau. The Committee proceeded to take action on the draft resolution at its 17th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 18 October 2002. The representative of Mexico made a statement in explanation of position before the adoption of draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.14. At the same meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

At the 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 22 October 2002, the Chairman introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.15 entitled “Enlargement of the membership of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law”. At the 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 24 October 2002, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.15 without a vote. The representative of Sierra Leone made a statement in explanation of position before the adoption of the draft resolution.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/562 and Corr.1)

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

Background (Source: A/57/100)

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 was held at the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly (decision 56/311), and the next election will be held during the sixty-first session.

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly requested the Commission to resume, during its fifty-fourth session, its consideration of the liability aspects of the topic of “International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law”, bearing in mind the interrelationship between prevention and liability and taking into account the developments in international law and comments by Governments; also requested the Commission to begin its work on the topic “Responsibility of international organizations” and to give further consideration to the remaining topics to be included in its long-term programme of work, having due regard to comments made by Governments; and recommended that the debate on the report of the International Law Commission at the fifty-seventh session of the Assembly commence on 28 October 2002 (resolution 56/82).

At the same session, the General Assembly welcomed the adoption by the Commission of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts (resolution 56/83).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A), 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 24th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 27th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 28th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held from 28 October to 7 November 2002. At the 20th meeting, the Sixth Committee observed a minute of silence in memory of Mr. Valery Kuznetsov (Russian Federation), recently deceased member of the International Law Commission. At the same meeting, the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Robert Rosenstock (United States) introduced chapters I, II, III and V of the Commission's report. The Chairman of the Commission subsequently introduced the next instalment of the Commission's report relating to chapter IV on "Reservations to treaties" at the 22nd meeting, held on 31 October, and that relating to chapters VI to X at the 23rd meeting, held on 1 November. The Special Rapporteur for the topic Diplomatic Protection, John Dugard (South Africa), addressed the Committee at its 24th meeting, on 4 November.

Statements were made by the representatives of Norway (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Australia, Germany, China, Japan, Austria, the Netherlands, Morocco, Iran (Islamic Rep. of), India, Italy, the Czech Republic, Israel, Mexico, Cyprus, Poland, Rep. of Korea, France, Spain, Switzerland, Guatemala, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Hungary, Finland (on behalf of Nordic countries), New Zealand, Romania, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, the United States of America, Portugal, Uruguay, Sierra Leone, Belarus, Myanmar, Brazil, Vietnam, Greece, Jordan, Slovenia, Nepal, Slovakia, Algeria, Venezuela,
Cuba, Turkey, Argentina, Nigeria and Chile. The representative of the observer delegation of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies also made a statement.

With regard to the topic “Reservations to treaties”, support was expressed for all newly adopted guidelines. The Commission's intention to complete the topic during its current term was welcomed.

The view was expressed that in case of a manifest impermissible reservation, the depositary of a treaty should have the competence to indicate this to the State which made the reservation. It was maintained that the procedure in case of manifestly impermissible reservations should be reconsidered in light of the outcome of the work on the status of illicit reservations. It was pointed out that the goal of safeguarding the integrity of the treaty by reacting to impermissible reservations on the basis of a common ground should be further considered by the Commission. Others wondered whether the power of depositary in cases of manifest impermissibility of reservations as expressed in draft guideline 2.1.8 did not go beyond the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The view was expressed that the depositary should not have any role in making the judgment about the impermissibility of reservations or indicating the legal problem raised by the reservation. It was noted that the withdrawal of reservations constituted part of the sovereign prerogative of States and no other entity could substitute itself on that issue. Indeed, the withdrawal of reservations, following the findings of a monitoring body, was one of the options available to the reserving State and did not constitute an obligation for that State. Instead, the role of the depositary should be strictly limited to communicating the reservation without passing judgment on the admissibility of reservations. Even when the depositary had to appreciate certain aspects of permissibility of reservations, States would have the final word. Several speakers advocated a clarification of the terminology used.

The view was expressed that the involvement of treaty monitoring bodies in the issue determining impermissibility of reservations might be useful although the ultimate responsibility on that question lay with States parties. It was suggested that consultations should be held between the Commission and the other bodies dealing with the issue of reservations to treaties. Indeed, support was expressed for the proposal to hold consultations between the Commission and the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Others were of the view that the issue would require further study in the light of the regime established by the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. It was wondered whether States had any obligation to act as a consequence of the findings of monitoring bodies and it was suggested that further clarification was needed regarding the phrase "body monitoring the implementation of a treaty". Still others did not support the view that States must take action following a finding by a treaty monitoring body that a reservation is impermissible. It was pointed out that the withdrawal of reservations is the right of contracting States which are not necessarily bound by the findings of treaty monitoring bodies. Others observed that the action which a reserving State should take after a monitoring body had found its reservations to be impermissible depended on the powers of the monitoring body. It was suggested that the preliminary conclusions of the Commission on this issue be reconsidered in the light of recent practice of monitoring bodies especially in the field of human rights. Still others doubted whether any treaty monitoring body has the power to decide if and when a reservation is impermissible.
It was suggested that reservations could be made by facsimile or e-mail provided that they should be confirmed by diplomatic note within reasonable time. It was pointed out that electronic communication of reservations is now part of practice and the date of receipt of such communication would be the decisive one. Others thought that there was no need for reservations to be made through electronic means. In terms of another view, the question of communication of reservations did not seem to arise since their communication forms part of the communication of the instrument of ratification or accession. The view was expressed that the effective date of communication of reservations should be the date of the written notification by the depositary.

The view was expressed that the distinction between conditional and simple interpretation declarations should be further clarified. Doubts were expressed about the utility of inclusion of guidelines on conditional interpretative declarations in the Guide to practice. Doubts were also expressed about the utility of the distinction between interpretative declarations and reservations as concerns their formulation. It was also suggested that no special category of conditional interpretative declarations be established.

As regards the topic “Diplomatic Protection”, all speakers congratulated the Commission for the results of its work undertaken in 2002, and expressed support for the Commission's stated goal of completing the topic at its current quinquennium. Satisfaction was also expressed with the draft article adopted in 2002, which were considered well-balanced and reflecting customary international law. Gratitude was also expressed to the Special Rapporteur for his contribution. Support was also expressed for the Commission's flexible approach to the draft articles, as exemplified by the non-inclusion of the "genuine link" requirement in determining nationality, as per the Nottebohm case. At the same time, reference was made to the importance of basing the draft articles on the actual practice of States as evidence of customary international law. Greater clarity was also needed as to the link between the present draft articles and those adopted in 2001 on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.

Support was expressed for the Commission's decision to maintain the continuous nationality rule, while recognizing exceptions in the context of involuntarily changes of nationality. Others questioned the wisdom of the breadth of the exception to the continuous nationality rule in article 4, which could result in abuse. Still others did not find the provision to be acceptable.

Several speakers did not rule out the possibility of diplomatic protection being exercised by the Flag State over crew members or passengers of another nationality. Indeed, some speakers supported such expansion of the draft articles in order to deal with lacunae in the Convention of the Law of the Sea. At the same time, caution was urged so as to avoid undermining existing international norms. In terms of another view, such protection ought to be extended by the flag State only to crew members, and not passengers, holding another nationality. Others preferred to exclude the issue from the scope of the draft articles entirely, leaving it to the law of the sea, and thereby limiting the draft articles to the classical questions of nationality of claims and exhaustion of local remedies.

Several speakers did not support the inclusion of “functional” protection of officials of international organizations within the scope of the topic. Others believed that due consideration needed to be given to the question of functional protection by international organizations over their officials and diplomatic protection over the inhabitants of a territory administered or controlled by a State or international organization.

In connection with the diplomatic protection of legal persons, support was expressed for the position that States cannot exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of their nationals who have suffered losses as shareholders in a foreign company. However, a preference was expressed for the recognition of the existence of a subsidiary right of protection where a State of nationality of a shareholder could exercise protection in cases where the State of incorporation of the company is unwilling or unable to exercise effective protection. Support was expressed for the view that customary international law recognizes the right of a State in its discretion to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of a corporation registered or incorporated in that State. It was pointed out that investors are usually aware of the risks of investing in foreign corporations. As such a preference was expressed for the right to protect a company to be that of the State of incorporation, with some exceptions. However, caution was again advised in codifying this area of the law. A preference was expressed for deferring the consideration of the position of legal persons until after the completion of the Commission's work on natural persons. Concern was expressed about possible delays in completing the draft articles that may arise out of the Commission's consideration of the protection of legal persons.

Several speakers commended the Commission for its inclusion of articles recognizing the possibility of diplomatic protection of refugees and stateless persons. Others were of the view that the requirement of lawful and habitual residence was too high. Similarly, concern was expressed for the plight of individuals who are neither stateless nor technically fall within the definition of refugees. Still others, in reiterating the nationality link as the basis of diplomatic protection, cautioned against allowing States to extend protection to non-nationals as it could lead to abuse. Caution was likewise advised against using diplomatic protection as a tool for the protection of human rights, which it was not designed to do.

Some speakers regretted the decision to delete draft articles 12 and 13 dealing with the substantive or procedural nature of the rule of exhaustion of local remedies. Several speakers preferred the definition of an effective local remedy to be that which allows a "reasonable possibility of an effective remedy". It was further suggested that any exceptions to the exhaustion of local remedies rule be carefully construed. Support was also expressed for the Commission's decision not to consider the “Calvo” clause. Others strongly favoured its inclusion as a common feature in Latin American jurisprudence. Support was likewise expressed for the deletion of the draft articles on the burden of proof and denial of justice, although several speakers regretted the deletion of the latter and called on the Commission to reconsider its position.

With regard to the topic “Unilateral acts of States”, support was expressed for the efforts to identify general rules applicable to all unilateral acts. At the same time, it was stressed that the Commission should limit itself to those acts truly suitable for codification. It was suggested that the Commission could concentrate on specific types of acts, such as promise, waiver and recognition. It was also suggested that the legal aspects of recognition and protest could be the focus. A preference was expressed for a study limited to a few general rules and particular situations, instead of a comprehensive set of rules. Others called for a set of minimum standards of conduct governing unilateral acts. Support was also expressed for a broad definition of unilateral acts, for avoiding a classification of the acts at this stage, and for analysing at the end of the process whether analogous provisions of the Vienna Conventions may be applied.

Others cautioned against dealing in a single study with very different material. Still others expressed skepticism on pursuing further work on the topic in the absence of additional evidence of practice. It was suggested that the approach of the Commission be reconsidered since there existed no State practice that recognized it as an independent legal doctrine. Conversely, others indicated that such acts do exist and can be binding upon States..

Concerning the topic “International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law”, support was expressed for the exploratory work carried out by the Commission. Several speakers welcomed the Commission's decision to resume the study of the second part of the topic. It was further observed that draft articles on liability were needed in order to give continuity to the topic. It was also noted that it would be easier for the Commission to elaborate some criteria and guidelines to be used by States when they negotiate loss sharing following incidents caused by activities not prohibited by international law rather than to elaborate detailed, rigid rules. The view was further expressed that the Commission should avoid any concepts not found in positive law and that State liability should be of a residual nature and based on conventional legal obligations. Others pointed out that there did not seem to be a desire among States to develop a global liability regime, and that instead ongoing efforts to develop liability regimes at the regional and sectoral levels should be supported.

While agreement was expressed with the view that failure to perform duties of prevention would entail State responsibility, it was stated that if compliance would not have prevented the harm, the State should not ipso facto be under an obligation to provide reparation. It was suggested that a survey of various treaties dealing with liability questions would allow the Commission to ascertain the degree of success of such instruments in order to determine the extent to which there is an acceptance of general rules concerning State liability. Reference was also made to relevant work carried out by the Permanent Court of Arbitration and discussions held at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law.

It was suggested that with regard to the activities to be covered, the Commission should, in addition, address activities carried out outside national jurisdiction that cause harm within national territories. Agreement was also expressed with the Commission that they should be the same as those included in the draft articles on prevention. On the role of the operator and the State in the allocation of loss, several speakers considered that the operator should bear primary responsibility, but that there should also be residual State liability to ensure that the innocent victim is adequately compensated, albeit only in certain specific circumstances.

On the issue of the threshold triggering liability, it was noted that it is unnecessary to have an initial trigger for the operator but that in the case of State liability the trigger should not be higher than “significant harm”. It was also proposed that the threshold for prevention be the same as that of liability, while others preferred a low threshold. In terms of another suggestion, in the case of the operator and non-State actors, the threshold should be “harm”, whereas with regard to State liability it should be “significant harm”.

On the issue of the types of loss to be covered, it was noted that in addition to loss to persons, property and the environment, economic loss linked to the risk of physical consequences flowing from a particular activity should also be recognised. As regards damage to the environment, it was observed that the compensation should cover the costs incurred from measures to mitigate or contain the harm and where possible the costs to reinstate the environment to the status quo ante. On the issue of whether regimes should be developed for particular forms of ultra-hazardous activities, the opinion was expressed that this should not be the focus of the Commission. Others were of the view that the Commission should study the issue of establishing a special regime for such activities where the threshold for the duty of prevention is higher.

On access to justice, it was suggested that the injured persons and entities should have recourse to the appropriate domestic courts to sue the liable operator. In terms of a further view, the renaming of the topic using the term “allocation of loss” could lead to misunderstandings as the real issue is not the allocation of the loss, but the duty to compensate.

Concerning the topic “Responsibility of international organizations”, support was expressed for the inclusion of the topic on the Commission's agenda. All speakers welcomed the appointment of Mr. Giorgio Gaja as Special Rapporteur for the topic

Support was expressed for limiting the scope of the topic to issues relating to responsibility for internationally wrongful acts under general international law. Agreement was expressed with the view that the appropriate concept of responsibility should be that encompassing the responsibility which international organizations incur for their wrongful acts and not “international liability”.

Several speakers expressed a preference for limiting the topic to intergovernmental organizations possessing international legal personality, thereby excluding Non-Governmental Organizations and International Organizations established under municipal law. At the same time, it was suggested that treaty-bodies established in the fields of human rights and the environment also be considered. The suggestion was made that a dispute settlement system be included in the envisaged draft articles.

As regards the topic “Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law”, support was expressed for the Commission's decision to include the topic on its programme of work as a major development that went beyond the traditional codification approach. Others also supported the consideration of the topic as a natural consequence of the expansion of international law, in particular the aspect relating to the hierarchy of international law, as well as its treatment in a series of studies or seminars. Others suggested the development of guidelines similar to those for Reservations to Treaties. Support was also expressed for the revised title for the topic, as well as for the study of specific aspects of the topic as recommended by the Study Group. Some were of the view that the Commission's study of the topic would help international judges and practitioners cope with the consequences of this fragmentation, and that it would strengthen international law.

Reference was made to the increasing problems relating to the fragmentation resulting from a proliferation of rules, actors and institutions in virtually every field of international law and the hope was expressed that the Commission would suggest practical solutions to these problems based on a thorough analysis of the topic. Several speakers stressed the importance of providing practical suggestions or guidance to assist States in overcoming difficulties associated with the fragmentation of international law. The view was expressed that the scope of the topic should encompass negative as well as positive effects of the fragmentation process.

It was suggested that the Commission's work should be based on a comprehensive survey of the relevant law and an in-depth analysis of the issue. It was proposed that the relation between customary law and the law of treaties was another important aspect that deserved study. It was also proposed that the Commission should concentrate on identifying existing structures and procedures for dealing with conflicting norms and their adaptation to address the void in the hierarchy of international norms. In terms of a further view, the Commission should also consider issues relating to the plurality of international judicial bodies.

Others questioned the inclusion of the topic in the Commission's long-term programme of work. It was observed that the topic did not clearly fall within the Commission's mandate with respect to the codification and progressive development of international law, and it was suggested that the Commission's Statute be reviewed and possibly updated to meet current needs. In this regard, attention was drawn to article 26, paragraph 3 of the Statute as an outdated provision. Still others expressed uncertainty as to the outcome of work, and it was doubted that it would lead to any practical result.

In addition, the observer for the International Federation of the Red Cross reviewed its relevant work on fragmentation in the response to international disasters in terms of its International Disaster Response Law Project.

Regarding the topic “Shared natural resources”, several speakers welcomed its inclusion in the Commission's programme of work and called for the elaboration of a legal framework. The Commission was further encouraged to analyze the extensive State practice regarding shared natural resources, particularly maritime delimitation agreements. The hope was expressed that the Commission's work would clarify general principles of international law, including the obligation to cooperate in the management and conservation of shared natural resources, especially fisheries resources. It was also suggested that the consideration of issues relating to confined groundwater would provide a useful basis for work on other relevant items.

Others expressed the view that the scope of the topic should be limited to the issue of groundwater since other aspects of transboundary resources were not yet ripe for study. The view was also expressed that the title of the new item was problematic and it was pointed out that since the 1997 Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses was not widely accepted, it could not serve as a basis for work on the topic.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At 28th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 7 November 2002, the representative of Peru, coordinator of the draft resolution on behalf of the Bureau, introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.27 entitled “Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its
fifty-fourth session”. After deciding to apply Rule 120 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, the Committee adopted, without a vote, draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.27. The representative of the United States spoke in explanation of position after the adoption of the draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.27.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/563)

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

Background (Source: A/57/100)

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, 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-sixth session, the General Assembly endorsed the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country contained in paragraph 37 of its report; requested the host country to continue to take all measures necessary to prevent any interference with the functioning of missions; and requested the Secretary-General to remain actively engaged in all aspects of the relations of the United Nations with the host country (resolution 56/84).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 27th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 28th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 6 and 7 November 2002, respectively. The Chairman of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country introduced the report of the Committee (A/57/26), at the Sixth Committee's 27th meeting. Statements were made by Costa Rica (on behalf of the Rio Group), Viet Nam (on behalf of the ASEAN), Libya, Russian Federation, Denmark (on behalf of the EU), Sierra Leone and the United States of America.

Speakers expressed their concern regarding the Diplomatic Parking Programme enforced by the host country, effective 1 November. They expressed their hope that the Programme will be implemented in a fair, efficient manner and consistent with international law. Delegations also referred to the problems of taxation and travel restrictions and called on the host country to resolve them in light of its obligations under the applicable agreements.

The Host Country reiterated its commitment to fully honour its obligations under the relevant international instruments.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 27th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 6 November 2002, the representative of Cyprus introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.25, entitled “Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country”.

At the 28th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 7 November 2002, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.25 without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/564 and Corr.1)

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

Background (Source: A/57/100)

At its forty-ninth session, in 1994, the General Assembly established an ad hoc committee to review the draft statute for an international criminal court and to consider arrangements for the convening of a conference of plenipotentiaries to conclude a convention on the establishment of such a court (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). At its fifty-first session, the Assembly decided that a diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries should be held in 1998, with a view to finalizing and adopting a convention (resolution 51/207). After the adoption by the Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998 and resolution F of the Final Act of the Conference, which established the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, the Assembly continued its consideration of the item at its fifty-second to fifty-fifth sessions (resolutions 52/160, 53/105, 54/105 and 55/155).

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to reconvene the Preparatory Commission from 8 to 19 April and from 1 to 12 July 2002; requested the Secretary-General to undertake preparations necessary to convene the meeting of the Assembly of States Parties at United Nations Headquarters upon the entry into force of the Statute; decided that the related expenses accruing to the United Nations, as well as expenses resulting from the provision of facilities and services for such a meeting and any consequent follow-up, should be paid in advance to the Organization, for which an appropriate mechanism would be set up; and requested the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its fifty-seventh session on the implementation of the resolution (resolution 56/85).

In the light of the expected entry into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002, the meeting of the Assembly of States Parties will be convened in September 2002.

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Committee considered the item at its 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 15th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 14, 15 and 28 October 2002, respectively. The Chairman of the Preparatory Commission and the President of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute made statements at the 13th meeting. The representatives of Denmark (on behalf of the European Union and associated countries), Philippines, New Zealand, Norway, Japan, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Cyprus, Chile, Mozambique, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Venezuela, Jordan, Uganda, Bulgaria, Cuba, Brazil, the United States of America, Peru, Mexico, United Republic of Tanzania, Canada, Nigeria, Ghana, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Burkina Faso, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of the CARICOM), Ecuador, Yugoslavia, Gabon, China, Australia, Cambodia, Argentina, Swaziland, Malawi, Croatia, the Netherlands and Ukraine spoke. The representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross also made a statement.

Most speakers welcomed the entry into force of the Rome Statute and recognized its significance for international law and the maintenance of international peace and security. They welcomed the timely completion of the mandate of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court and successful conclusion of the first session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute. Speakers also welcomed the adoption of the various instruments by consensus, singling out the elements of crimes and the rules of procedure and evidence as well as underscored the importance of early entry into force of the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. Others welcomed the adoption of a responsible budget, expressing the hope that future budgets will take into account similar considerations. Speakers also stressed the importance of securing the financing of the Court.

Several speakers reiterated the importance of the nomination and election of the judges and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court being transparent and fully consistent with the Rome Statute, and that those elected be of the highest calibre. Furthermore, it was essential that the composition of the Court be fully representative of all regions, legal systems and genders. Several representatives indicated the intention of their Governments to submit nominations for judges.

Speakers continued to stress the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the Statute, while pointing out that they will remain engaged with those countries opposed to the Court. It was emphasized that the Rome Statute contained sufficient safeguards against politically motivated prosecutions. As examples, some speakers alluded to the principle of territoriality as one of the bases of jurisdiction of the Court, the principle of complementarity and the various admissibility provisions in the Statute and in other supplementary instruments. Other speakers envisaged an important political role for the Assembly of States Parties, including continuing the dialogue on matters relating to acceptability of the Statute. Several delegations expressed their regrets over efforts that would undermine the integrity of the Statute. In particular, they pointed to steps taken by the United States to conclude article 98 agreements with other States. It was pointed out that the provision had been adopted with Status of Mission and Status of Forces Agreements in mind. Under this view, the proposed non-surrender bilateral agreements under article 98 undermined the integrity of the Court and the principle of territorial jurisdiction. It was proposed that an advisory opinion be sought from the ICJ on article 98. Some delegations whose Governments had already been approached indicated that they will ensure that such agreements are compatible with the Rome Statute. In this regard, some speakers welcomed the Common Position of the European Council, and suggested that the criteria adopted could be a good basis for others to follow. Some speakers also expressed their disapproval of Resolution 1422 adopted by the Security Council, exempting U.N. peacekeepers from the Court's jurisdiction, and which was described as being inconsistent with the Rome Statute and the powers of the Security Council.

The United States reiterated its opposition to the Rome Statute, while declaring that it did not seek to undermine the Court. Its opposition rested on three bases: (1) the possibility of politically motivated prosecutions; (2) problems in the related areas of jurisdiction and due process; and (3) lack of Security Council oversight. With regard to the second point, it was stated that while sovereigns have the right to try non-citizens who have committed offences on their territory, the U.S. has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so absent consent or a Security Council mandate and oversight.

Several speakers reiterated the importance of continued work on reaching an acceptable definition of the crime of aggression as well as agreement on the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction. Others reiterated their continuing interest in the inclusion of serious drug trafficking and other transboundary criminal activities within the jurisdiction of the Court at a review conference.

All States were urgedto cooperate with the Court and the other international tribunals by surrendering indictees, providing full and effective assistance with regard to witnesses as well as practical assistance in the enforcement of sentences.

Achieving universality was stressed as the ultimate objective. Several Speakers also singled out the importance of domestic implementation of the Statute. They referred to efforts currently underway with a view to their respective ratification or accession to the Statute and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Court, as well as measures being undertaken at the national and regional level to ensure full compliance with the Statute. In this connection, several speakers underlined their willingness to assist States in need of technical assistance.

Several speakers expressed support for the United Nations Secretariat continuing to provide assistance to the Assembly of States Parties in 2003, and expressed their gratitude for such assistance. It was noted further that such services should be paid from the Court's budget. The advance team for the Court was further praised for its work. The importance of recruiting staff for the Court in a transparent and equitable manner was further emphasized.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 15th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representative of The Netherlands introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.16 entitled “Establishment of the International Criminal Court” and revised it orally. The draft resolution, as revised, was subsequently re-issued as document A/C.6/57/L.16/Rev.1.

At the 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 28 October 2002, the Secretary of the Committee made a statement on the administrative and financial implications of draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.16/Rev.1.The representative of the United States of America made a statement before the Committee took action on the draft resolution.The Committee subsequently adopted draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.16/Rev.1 without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/565)

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

Background (Source: A/57/100)

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 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 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 (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, 53/107, 54/106, 54/107, 55/156 and 55/157).

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly decided that the Special Committee should hold its next session from 18 to 28 March 2002, and requested the Special Committee to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at its fifty-seventh session (resolution 56/86).

At the same session, the General Assembly requested the Special Committee, at its session in 2002, 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; decided to consider, within the Sixth Committee or a working group of that Committee, at the fifty-seventh session, further progress in the elaboration of effective measures aimed at the implementation of the 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-seventh session (resolution 56/87).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Committee considered the item at its 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 7, 10, 17, 31 October and 5 November 2002, respectively. The Chairperson of the 2002 session of the Special Committee introduced the report of the Committee (A/57/33) at the 11th meeting. Statements were made by the representatives of Belarus, Denmark (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), China, Cuba, Algeria, Turkey, Malaysia, Costa Rica (on behalf of the Rio Group), Guatemala, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Uganda, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Tunisia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Japan, Venezuela, Swaziland, Kenya, Nigeria, India, the Russian Federation, Pakistan, Nepal, Suriname, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Mali, Sierra Leone, the United States of America and Ukraine.

Some support was expressed for the Russian proposal on the legal basis for peace-keeping operations. A point was made, however, that the Committee should avoid duplicating the work of the Special Committee on Peace-keeping in this area. Some support was also expressed for further consideration of the Cuban and Libyan proposals on the strengthening of the role of the Organization and for the proposal by the Russian Federation and Belarus to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice as to the legal consequences of the resort to the use of force by States without prior authorization by the Security Council, except in the exercise of self-defence.

General support was expressed for the draft resolution submitted at the 2002 session of the Committee by Sierra-Leone and the United Kingdom on dispute prevention and settlement.

Concerning the future of the Trusteeship Council, diverging views were expressed against changes in its mandate. A point was made that the issue should be dealt with in the overall context of the reform of the Organization.

As regards the implementation of the Charter provisions related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions, it was noted that the absence of an agreed methodology to assess adverse effects of sanctions on third States remained a serious concern of the international community. Several speakers stressed that the United Nations, in particular the Security Council, should bear primarily responsibility in developing such methodology and in the provision of assistance to third states affected by sanctions. In this context, they called for the Security Council to implement the respective conclusions and recommendations of the ad hoc expert group. They also stressed the urgent need to establish a trust fund to compensate third States negatively affected by application of sanctions, as well as to explore other practical relief measures. Several delegations noted the importance of the continuation of the consideration of the matter in the General Assembly and called for the establishment of a Working Group within the Sixth Committee for such purpose.

Regarding the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, several delegations continued to express their support for the efforts of the SG to reduce the backlog. Member States and financial institutions were urged to contribute to the trust fund on the Repertoire. Some delegations continued to express concern over the proposal to cease the production of the Repertory by the United Nations.

A number of suggestions were also made as regards the working methods of the Special Committee. Support was expressed for the proposal by Japan on the matter, including suggestions for a more prioritised and result-oriented agenda of the Committee. A point was made, however, that the General Assembly should continue establishing the priority items and assign them to the Committee on the basis of the Committee's mandate and irrespective of whether these items have been taken up by other bodies.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 17 October 2002, the representative of Bulgaria introduced the 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.6/57/L.11) and orally amended it. The Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote at its 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 6 November 2002. Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Sierra Leone, Tunisia and Uganda joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

At the 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 31 October 2002, the representative of Egypt introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.19 entitled “Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization”. The Secretary of the Committee made a statement. The Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote at its 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 5 November 2002.

At the 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 5 November 2002, the Chairman introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.10, entitled “Prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes”, on behalf of the Bureau. The Committee adopted the draft resolution with a vote at the same meeting.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/566)

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

Measures to eliminate international terrorism

Background (Source: A/57/100)

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 (resolution 3034 (XXVII)).

The General Assembly continued its consideration of the item biennially at its thirty-fourth to forty-eighth sessions, and annually thereafter (resolutions 34/145, 36/109, 38/130, 40/61, 42/159, 44/29, 46/51, 49/60 and 50/53, and decision 48/411).

At its fifty-first session, the General Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate an international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and, subsequently, an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, to supplement related existing international instruments, and thereafter to address means of further developing a comprehensive legal framework of conventions dealing with international terrorism (resolution 51/210).

The General Assembly continued its consideration of the item at its fifty-second to fifty-fifth sessions (resolutions 52/164, 52/165, 53/108, 54/110 and 55/158).

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly welcomed the progress made in elaborating a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism; decided that the Ad Hoc Committee should meet from 28 January to 1 February 2002 and that it should continue its work on the draft convention, if necessary, during the fifty-seventh session, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee; and requested the Ad Hoc Committee to report to the Assembly at its fifty-seventh session on progress made in the implementation of its mandate (resolution 56/88).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

Discussion in the Plenary of the Sixth Committee

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 7th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 8th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 9th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 2 to 4 October and 6 November, respectively. At the 2nd meeting, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee introduced its report (A/57/37). The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 introduced the report of the Committee (A/57/37). Statements were made by the representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic, Algeria, Viet Nam (on behalf of ASEAN), Australia, Mali, Niger, the Russian Federation, Angola, Denmark (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), South Africa, New Zealand, Myanmar, China, Sri Lanka, Sudan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Ghana, Tunisia, Nepal, Jordan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Venezuela, Egypt, Japan, Chile, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Burkina Faso, Benin, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Morocco, Georgia, Canada, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lebanon, the United States of America, Poland, Nigeria, Mozambique, Yemen, Mexico, India, Yugoslavia, Uganda, Fiji (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum Group), Belarus, Turkey, Swaziland, Argentina, Congo, Brazil, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Paraguay, Peru, Gabon, Ethiopia, Israel, Armenia, Ecuador and Guatemala.

All speakers condemned international terrorism and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and expressed support for the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on the matter. The speakers favoured the speedy completion of the work on the draft convention on nuclear terrorism and the draft comprehensive convention on the suppression of terrorism and their adoption.

Concerning the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, some speakers reiterated their position as regards the need to distinguish between terrorism and the legitimate fight of peoples for their right to self-determination and called for the formulation of a legal definition of terrorism. They viewed State terrorism as the most dangerous form of this scourge and referred to the situation in the Middle East in this connection. Some speakers drew the Committee's attention to the dangers posed by State-sponsored terrorism and referred to the situations in various countries in this connection. The point was made that consensus should be achieved in respect of such issues as the savings and exclusions clauses from the scope of the draft comprehensive convention.

As regards the draft convention on nuclear terrorism, it was pointed out that the recent debate in the International Atomic Energy Agency on the protection of nuclear materials should be taken into account.

Support was expressed for the holding of an international conference on terrorism under United Nations auspices. However, some speakers stated that the holding of the conference should be addressed after the adoption of the comprehensive convention on terrorism. A call for a “Global Summit” to adopt the comprehensive convention on terrorism was also made.

The speakers expressed their commitment to contributing to the work of the Counter-Terrorism Committee in ensuring global implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) and highlighted their activities at the national and international levels. It was pointed out that international cooperation in suppressing the crime of terrorism should be carried out in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and basic norms and principles of international law, including those relating to human rights. The need to address the root causes of terrorism was also stressed by some speakers. The view was expressed that it was necessary to adopt a consensus resolution by the General Assembly on the item, urging States, in addition to other counter-terrorist measures, to become parties to relevant legal instruments, and stressing the importance of enhancing the capacity of States to combat terrorism and the role of regional, sub-regional and functional organizations in this area.

The representatives of the United States of America, Cuba, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Armenia, Israel and Egypt also spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

Working Group (source A/C.6/57/L.9):

The General Assembly, in its resolution 56/88 of 12 December 2001, decided that the Ad Hoc Committee established by resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 should meet from 28 January to 1 February 2002 to continue the elaboration of a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, with appropriate time allocated to the continued consideration of outstanding issues relating to the elaboration of a draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, and that it should keep on its agenda 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 Assembly also decided that the work should continue, if necessary, during the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee. In turn, the Ad Hoc Committee, at its 26th meeting, on 1 February 2002, decided to recommend that the Sixth Committee, at the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly, should consider establishing such a working group.

Accordingly, the Sixth Committee, at its 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 7 October 2002, established a Working Group and elected Mr. Rohan Perera (Sri Lanka) as its Chairman. 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 held two meetings, on 15 and 16 October 2002, and considered and adopted its report at its 2nd meeting, held on 16 October.

At its 1st meeting, on 15 October, the Working Group decided to proceed with discussions in informal consultations. Mr. Richard Rowe of Australia acted as Coordinator of the informal consultations. They were held in two stages: the first focused on the draft comprehensive convention, and the second on the outstanding issues pertaining to the draft international convention for suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. At the 2nd meeting, on 16 October, the Coordinator presented an oral report on the results of informal consultations on both draft conventions (see annex II of the Working Group's report) .

Elaboration of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism

The Working Group continued its work on the elaboration of a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. The texts of article 18,10 and the preamble and article 1,11 as well as the texts of articles 2 and 2 bis,12 were reviewed in informal consultations. At the 1st meeting of the Working Group, the Chairman urged delegations to exert all efforts to reach a consensus on the outstanding issues pertaining to the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. At the 2nd meeting of the Working Group, the Coordinator presented an oral report to the Working Group.

Elaboration of a draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism

At the 1st meeting of the Working Group, the Chairman recalled that most of the text of the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism had substantially been completed, with the question of the scope of the convention remaining unresolved, and urged delegations, in a spirit of compromise, to seek a resolution of the outstanding matters pertaining to the instrument. Discussions on the draft convention were held in informal consultations. At the 2nd meeting of the Working Group, the Coordinator presented an oral report to the Working Group.

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

At the 1st meeting of the Working Group, the Chairman recalled that several speakers had referred to this matter during the debate on the item "Measures to eliminate international terrorism" in the Sixth Committee and invited all interested delegations to approach him with any concrete proposals they might have on the issue.

Recommendations and conclusions

At its 2nd meeting, the Working Group decided to refer the consideration of the present report to the Sixth Committee. The Working Group also decided, bearing in mind resolution 56/88, to recommend to the Sixth Committee that work should continue with the aim of finalizing the text of a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and the text of a draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, building upon the work accomplished during the meetings of the Working Group.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 6 November 2002, the representative of Canada introduced, on behalf of the Bureau of the Sixth Committee, draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.22, entitled “Measures to eliminate international terrorism”.

At the 28th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 7 November 2002, the Committee proceeded to the adoption of draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.22. The representative of Pakistan spoke in explanation of position before the adoption of the draft resolution. The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.22, as orally revised by the representative of Canada, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/567)

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

Scope of legal protection under the Convention on Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel

Background (Source: A/57/100)

This item was included in the agenda of the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly, in 2001, pursuant to paragraph 20 of Assembly resolution 55/175.

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the recommendations made by the Secretary-General in his report on measures to strengthen and enhance the protective legal regime for United Nations and associated personnel; requested the Secretary-General to invite the International Committee of the Red Cross to participate as an observer in the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Committee; decided that the Ad Hoc Committee should meet from 1 to 5 April 2002; requested the Ad Hoc Committee to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at its fifty-seventh session; and recommended that, following the submission of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Sixth Committee consider whether to continue the work during the fifty-seventh session, from 7 to 11 October 2002, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee (resolution 56/89).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 5th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 6th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 30 September, 1, 17 October and 5 November 2002, respectively. The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 56/89 of 19 December 2001 the report of the Ad hoc Committee at the 5th meeting. Statements were made by the representatives of New Zealand, Guyana, Cuba, Australia, United States, Argentina, Ukraine, Chile, Spain, Denmark (on behalf of the European Union; the countries of Central and Eastern Europe associated with the European Union - Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia; and the Associated Countries - Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, as well as the EFTA countries of the European Economic Area - Iceland and Norway), Croatia, Canada, Uganda, Kenya, Malaysia, Fiji, Russian Federation, China, Romania, Brazil, Angola, Japan, Ecuador, Poland and Uruguay.

Delegations noted that the number of attacks against UN and other humanitarian personnel had increased dramatically, and that therefore there was a need to strengthen the protective regime offered by the 1994 Convention.

The speakers noted the broad convergence of views that emerged in the Ad Hoc Committee discussions on the short-term measures proposed by the Secretary-General in document A/55/637. In particular, there was general support for the inclusion of relevant provisions of the 1994 Convention in SOFAs, SOMAs and host country agreements.

Some delegations considered that strengthening the regime involved primarily looking at ways to promote the universality of the Convention, without altering the existing regime, and including through the implementation of the short-term measures. Other speakers considered it necessary to extend the scope of the Convention to cover all UN operations and humanitarian non-governmental personnel through the elaboration of a Protocol.

Several delegations considered that the debate on the Secretary-General's recommendations in document A/55/637 relating to the longer-term measures should be continued. The suggestion was also made that further deliberations on this topic should involve a discussion on how to implement the short-term measures, including elaborating a time frame.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 17 October 2002, the coordinator for informal consultations (Ecuador) provided an oral report on the consultations. At the 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 31 October 2002, the representative of New Zealand introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.20 entitled “Scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel”. It was announced that the Netherlands had joined as sponsor of the draft resolution.

At the 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 5 November 2002, the representative of New Zealand orally revised paragraph 8 of draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.20. Brazil, Iceland, Monaco, Papua New Guinea, Suriname and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia joined as sponsors of the draft resolution. At the same meeting, the Secretary of the Committee made a statement and the Committee adopted the draft resolution, as orally revised, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/568 and Corr.1)

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

International convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings

Background (Source: A/57/100)

This item was included in the agenda of the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly, in 2001, as a supplementary item, at the request of France and Germany (A/56/192).

At that session, the General Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee for the purpose of considering the elaboration of an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings; decided that the Ad Hoc Committee would meet from 25 February to 1 March 2002, and recommended that the work continue during the fifty-seventh session from 23 to 27 September 2002, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee; and requested the Ad Hoc Committee to report on its work to the Assembly at its fifty-seventh session (resolution 56/93).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

Discussion in the Working Group (see A/C.6/57/L.4)

The General Assembly, in its resolution 56/93 of 12 December 2001, decided to establish the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings, to consider the elaboration of a mandate for the negotiation of an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings, including a list of the existing international instruments to be taken into consideration and a list of legal issues to be addressed in the convention. It also recommended that the work continue during the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly from 23 to 27 September 2002, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee.

Accordingly, the Sixth Committee, at its 1st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting of the fifty-seventh session, on 23 September 2002, established such a Working Group and elected Peter Tomka (Slovakia) as its Chairman. The Working Group held seven meetings, from 23 to 27 September 2002.

The Working Group had before it the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the work of its first session as well as a revised version of the information paper prepared by the Secretariat containing a list of existing international instruments to be taken into consideration (A/AC.263/2002/INF/1/Rev.1). The Working Group also had before it oral and written proposals submitted during its meetings.

The Working Group held a general exchange of views at its 1st to 3rd meetings, on 23 and 24 September 2002 (see below)

At its 7th meeting, on 27 September 2002, the Working Group decided to refer its report to the Sixth Committee for its consideration and recommended that the Committee continue the consideration of the elaboration of a negotiation mandate during the current session, taking into account the discussions in the Working Group, including the proposals contained in annex I to the report.

Informal summary of the general discussion in the Working Group, prepared by the Chairman

All speakers expressed their firm opposition to the reproductive cloning of human beings. It was observed that the reproductive cloning of human beings raised ethical, moral, religious, scientific and other concerns and had far-reaching implications for human dignity. Some speakers were equally opposed to both therapeutic and experimental cloning. As regards the approach to be taken, there were different views.

Some delegations supported as a priority the elaboration of an international convention that would ban the reproductive cloning of human beings. It was noted that it was vital for the international community to send a clear message that the reproductive cloning of human beings was unethical, intolerable and illegal. Those delegations supported a step-by-step approach that would address first the reproductive cloning of human beings and then therapeutic cloning. It was noted that that approach was both pragmatic and principled as it recognized the concerns, complex issues and conflicting views associated with therapeutic and experimental cloning and reflected the fundamental point of consensus that reproductive cloning was morally unacceptable. Several of those delegations noted that work on the cloning of human beings was currently taking place, which made it urgent to elaborate an international convention against reproductive cloning as soon as possible. It was emphasized that such a convention would not preclude the adoption at the national level of stricter standards, nor would it imply tacit acceptance of other forms of cloning. It was also noted that, in view of the lack of a consensus on therapeutic cloning, it would be difficult to elaborate a comprehensive convention swiftly, and therefore it would be unwise to attempt to include therapeutic cloning at the first stage. It was suggested that therapeutic cloning could be the subject at later stage of a protocol to the convention or of a separate convention.

Some other delegations supported a comprehensive ban in an international convention of both the reproductive cloning of human beings and cloning for therapeutic and experimental purposes. These delegations could not agree on only a partial ban on the reproductive cloning of human beings since it would be ineffective if therapeutic cloning was not likewise prohibited, since the technology was essentially the same. It would also send the wrong signal to the international community as it would implicitly authorize the creation and destruction of human embryos for experimentation. It was noted that a partial ban on cloning would also create legal uncertainty. The view was expressed that the distinction between reproductive and therapeutic or experimental cloning masked the reality that a human being was being created for the purposes of destroying it to produce embryonic stem cell lines or to carry out other experimentation. It was noted that those techniques raised profound ethical and moral questions and were highly controversial. The view was also expressed that, regardless of its objective, human embryonic cloning conflicted with the international legal norms that protected human dignity. It was also observed that other cloning techniques existed that did not raise any moral or ethical concerns and that, in particular, adult stem cell research did not pose a problem and would not be covered by a comprehensive ban.

Some delegations noted that therapeutic cloning of embryonic stem cells might offer potential medical benefits and that it would be unwise to hastily close off any promising avenue of medical science before mankind had the benefit of properly understanding it. It was further noted that it was unclear whether adult stem cell research yielded the same benefits for medical science as embryonic stem cells.

Alternative approaches were also proposed. In that context, the suggestion was made for a moratorium pending the entry into force of a convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings. Another approach proposed a permanent ban on reproductive cloning and a temporary ban of a maximum of five years on therapeutic cloning so as to enable the international community to consider changes in standards and relevant scientific developments over time. A suggestion was also made to proceed with a ban on reproductive cloning on the basis of a "fast-track approach", given the urgency of the matter, and at the same time to proceed with work on therapeutic and experimental cloning on the basis of a "slower-track approach". A further suggestion was for a two-tiered approach involving the elaboration of a convention that would focus on the reproductive cloning of human beings and also contain provisions on other human cloning activities such as therapeutic or experimental cloning that Contracting Parties would be able to opt in or opt out of when signing or ratifying the convention or at any time thereafter.

Several delegations made reference to efforts being undertaken at the domestic level to regulate or ban human embryonic cloning.

As regards any future work in the area, some delegations noted the importance of defining basic terms. A suggestion was also made that, with regard to a future international monitoring mechanism, a necessary component should be the establishment of an international cloning commission, whose task would be to follow the progress in scientific and biotechnological developments in the field of genetic and reproductive medicine in order to provide a comparative updated study of trends in the field and their implications. It was also noted that a crucial element in ensuring the adoption of a convention and its effective implementation was the promotion of international cooperation geared towards alternative technologies, such as adult stem cell research, for developing countries. To that end, a future international convention should include references to fostering alternative technologies, capacity-building and the setting up of international research networks.

Discussion in the Plenary of the Sixth Committee

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 17th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 28th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 17, 18 October and 5, 6 and 7 November 2002, respectively. At the 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings introduced its report (A/57/51) as well as the report of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee (A/C.6/57/L.4). Statements were made by the representatives of Germany (also on behalf of France), Spain, Costa Rica, Cameroon, Mexico, Switzerland, Sudan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference), Brazil, Senegal, Liechtenstein, Gabon, Cyprus, Norway, United States of America, Chile, Cuba, Greece, Thailand, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, Italy, Argentina, Kenya, Singapore, Ethiopia, Panama, Bulgaria and Fiji. The representatives of the observer delegations of the Holy See and UNESCO also spoke.

Views continued to be divided as to the scope of the proposed convention.

Support was expressed for a treaty limited to banning reproductive cloning since consensus already existed on the issue. Several speakers supported the step-by-step approach, according to which, immediate negotiations for an international convention banning reproductive cloning would start, as a matter of urgency, and in accordance with the mandate given to the Ad Hoc Committee by General Assembly resolution 56/93. Immediately afterwards, other related concerns might be addressed in another international instrument. They were of the opinion that it was important to establish a precise and not-overly ambitious mandate for the Ad-Hoc Committee, taking into account the various religious, moral, ethical and other considerations involved in the matter, which were difficult to reconcile and could lead to no result at all. Others also pointed to the potential benefits of “therapeutic” cloning.

Other speakers reiterated their support for a more comprehensive approach dealing with all forms of human cloning. According to that view, not only reproductive cloning, but also creating and destroying human embryos for experimentation purposes, including for “therapeutic” cloning, was contrary to human dignity and should therefore be prohibited. The advantages of adult stem cell research were instead pointed to. The draft resolution proposing the narrow “partial” approach was also criticized for failing to properly ensure that all forms of cloning would be addressed as a follow-up to a treaty on reproductive cloning.

Several speakers referred to measures already being undertaken at the national level to regulate or ban forms of cloning. Others also questioned the appropriateness of spending resources on cloning technology in the face of mass poverty and disease. UNESCO expressed its continuing willingness to provide assistance in the form of studies on the scientific and ethical aspects of reproductive cloning and related issues.

Some speakers also urged the sponsors of the draft resolutions, to continue to explore all avenues for cooperation in order to come to a common solution concerning the scope of the new instrument, as well as the future mandate of the working group.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 17 October 2002, the representative of Germany introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.8 entitled “International convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings”, and the representative of Spain introduced and orally revised draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.3 (subsequently reissued as A/C.6/57/L.3/Rev.1), entitled “International convention against human cloning”.

The Chairman of the Sixth Committee made a statement at the 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 5 November 2002. The Chairman of the Sixth Committee introduced draft decision A/C.6/57/L.24, entitled “International convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings”, at the 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting of the Committee, held on 6 November 2002. The Committee adopted draft decision A/C.6/57/L.24 at its 28th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 7 November 2002. The representative of the Sudan made a statement before the adoption of the draft resolution. Statements were made after the adoption of the draft resolution by the representatives of Mexico, Korea (Rep. of), Germany (also on behalf of France), Costa Rica, Spain, San Marino and Ethiopia.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/569 and Corr.1 (French only))

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

Background (Source: A/57/100)

This item was included in the agenda of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly, in 2000, at the request of Sweden, on behalf of the following States members of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance: Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, India, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay (A/55/226).

At its fifty-fifth session, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, decided to resume its consideration of and defer a decision on the request for observer status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly to its fifty-sixth session (decision 55/429).

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly similarly decided to defer further consideration of and a decision on the request to its fifty-seventh session (decision 56/423).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 27 September and 5 and 6 November 2002, respectively. Statements were made by the representative of Sweden, China, Egypt, Germany and Chile.

Concerns were expressed by some speakers as to the intergovernmental nature of the IDEA. Others expressed their support for granting observer status to the IDEA.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 25th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 5 November 2002, the representative of Sweden introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.23, entitled “Observer status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly”. Statements were made by the representatives of China, Egypt, Namibia, the Sudan, Costa Rica, Germany, India, Libya, Chile and Belgium. The Chairman also made a statement.

At the 26th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 6 November 2002, the representative of Sweden made a statement withdrawing draft resolution A/C.6/5/L.23 and introducing draft decision A/C.6/57/L.26 entitled “Observer status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly”. The Committee adopted the draft decision without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/570)

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

Observer Status for Partners in Population and Development in the General Assembly

Background (Source: A/57/100)

This item was included in the provisional agenda of the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly, in 2001, at the request of the States members of Partners in Population and Development: Bangladesh, China, Colombia, Egypt, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Uganda and Zimbabwe (A/55/241).

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly decided to defer further consideration of and a decision on the request for observer status for Partners in Population and Development in the General Assembly to its fifty-seventh session (decision 56/424).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 27 September and 7 October 2002, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of Bangladesh, Thailand, Cuba, Yemen and Egypt.

Ssupport was expressed for granting of observer status to Partners in Population and Development in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the delegation of Bangladesh introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.2 entitled “Observer status for Partners in Population and Development in the General Assembly”. At the 11th meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/571)

Observer status for the Asian Development Bank in the General Assembly

Background (Source: A/57/100/Add.1)

By a letter dated 1 May 2002 (A/57/141), the Permanent Representative of China requested the inclusion of the above item in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session.

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 27 September, 4 and 7 October 2002, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of China, Malaysia, Viet Nam, Philippines and Indonesia.

Support was expressed for the granting of observer status to the Asian Development Bank in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the delegation of China introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.6 entitled “Observer Status for the Asian Development Bank in the General Assembly”. At the 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/572)

Observer status for the International Centre for Migration Policy Development in the General Assembly

Background (Source: A/57/100/Add.1)

By a letter dated 14 June 2002 (A/57/142), the Permanent Representative of Austria requested the inclusion of the above item in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session.

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 27 September, 4, 7 and 10 October 2002, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of Austria, Switzerland, Hungary and Spain.

Support was expressed for the granting of observer status to the International Centre for Migration Policy Development in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the delegation of Austria introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.7 entitled “Observer status for the International Centre for Migration Policy Development in the General Assembly”. At the 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee deferred taking action on the draft resolution. At the 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Commitee the draft resolution without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/573)

Cooperation between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Background (Source: A/57/100)

This item was included in the agenda of the fiftieth session of the General Assembly, in 1995, at the request of Senegal (A/50/141 and Corr.1 and 2 and Add.1-3). The Assembly considered the item at that session and at its fifty-first to fifty-fifth sessions (resolutions 50/15, 51/7, 52/7, 53/13, 54/12 and 55/19).

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly, inter alia, welcomed the ongoing efforts to explore ways in which a new and strengthened relationship might be established between the General Assembly and its subsidiary organs on the one hand and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) on the other, and encouraged Member States to continue their consultations with a view to adopting a decision thereon during the fifty-seventh session of the Assembly; and requested the Secretary-General to submit a report to the Assembly at its fifty-seventh session on the various aspects of cooperation between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (resolution 56/46).

At the same session, in a letter dated 7 November 2001 addressed to the President of the General Assembly (A/56/614), the Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations recalled that, under agenda item 21 (f), the Assembly also had before it a report on a new relationship between IPU and the United Nations (A/55/996). Specifically, the proposal was to give IPU observer status on a par with other international bodies that had similar status in the General Assembly. On the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, the General Assembly decided to defer further consideration of and a decision on the request for observer status for the Inter-Parliamentary Union in the General Assembly to its fifty-seventh session (decision 56/425).

Work undertaken at the Fifty-seventh session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 3rd (E, F, S, R, C, A), 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 27 September, 4 and 7 October 2002, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of Hungary, Venezuela, France, Belgium, Guatemala, Austria, Chile, Malaysia, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Romania, Peru, Germany, Indonesia, Poland, Argentina, Turkey, United Kingdom, Viet Nam, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, South Africa, Namibia, Madagascar, Japan and Italy.

All delegations who spoke expressed their support for the granting of observer status to the Inter-Parliamentary Union in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 10th meeting, the delegation of Hungary introduced draft resolution A/C.6/57/L.5 entitled “Observer status for the Inter-Parliamentary Union in the General Assembly”. At the 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/57/574)

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

Copyright (c) 2002
United Nations