Background (Source: A/58/100/Add.1)

The appeals process

At its fifty-fifth session, in 2001, under the item entitled “Human resources management”, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to report to it on an annual basis on the outcome of the work of the Joint Appeals Board (resolution 55/258, sect. XI, para. 5).

At its resumed fifty-seventh session, in April 2003, under the item entitled “Administration of justice at the United Nations”, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to include statistics on the disposition of cases and information on the work of the Panel of Counsel in his annual report on the administration of justice in the Secretariat (resolution 57/307, para. 21). The Assembly welcomed the Secretary-General's initiative in requesting the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) to conduct a management review of the appeals process; and requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the management review covers particular areas of the appeals process (resolution 57/307, paras. 8-11); requested the Secretary-General, taking due account of the findings of OIOS, management review of the appeals process, to submit a report to the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly containing alternatives on strengthening the administration of justice (resolution 57/307, para. 9); also requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Ombudsman and staff representatives, to submit detailed proposals on the role and work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances for consideration by the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session (resolution 57/307, para. 20); and requested the Secretary-General to develop an effective system of personal responsibility and accountability to recover financial losses to the Organization caused by management irregularities, wrongful actions or gross negligence of officials of the United Nations Secretariat that resulted in judgements of the Administrative Tribunal, and to report thereon to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session (resolution 57/307, para. 25).

Issues pertaining to the United Nations Administrative Tribunal

Also at its resumed fifty-seventh session, in April 2003, under the item entitled “Administration of justice at the United Nations”, the General Assembly decided to take a decision at its fifty-eighth session on amending the statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal requiring that the candidates for the Tribunal possess judicial experience in the field of administrative law or its equivalent (resolution 57/307, para. 14); requested the Secretary-General to take steps to ensure the independence of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and the separation of its secretariat from the Office of Legal Affairs, to study the possibility of its financial independence and to report thereon to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session (resolution 57/307, para. 5); and requested the United Nations Administrative Tribunal to submit a comprehensive report on its activities to the General Assembly (resolution 57/307, para. 23).

Background documentation:

(a) Reports of the Secretary-General:

Outcome of the work of the Joint Appeals Board during 2001 and 2002 (resolutions 55/258 and 57/307), A/58/300;

Possibility of the financial independence of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal from the Office of Legal Affairs (resolution 57/307);

Administration of justice at the United Nations (resolution 57/307);

(b) Notes by the Secretary-General transmitting:

Report prepared by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal on its activities (resolution 57/307);

Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the management review of the appeals process (resolution 57/307);

(c) Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.

References for the fifty-fifth session (agenda item 123)

Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions on the administration of justice in the United Nations (A/55/514)

Notes by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled “Administration of justice at the United Nations” (A/55/57) and his comments thereon (A/55/57/Add.1)

Summary record A/C.5/55/SR.68

Report of the Fifth Committee A/55/890/Add.1

Plenary meeting A/55/PV.103

Resolution 55/258

References for the fifty-seventh session (agenda item 123)

Report of the Secretary-General on the monitoring capacity in the Office of Human Resources Management (A/57/276)

Notes by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled “Reform of the administration of justice in the United Nations system: options for higher recourse instances” (A/57/441) and his comments and those of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination thereon (A/57/441/Add.1)

Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions on the administration of justice in the Secretariat (A/57/736)

Summary records A/C.5/57/SR.41, 42 and 45

Report of the Fifth Committee A/57/768

Plenary meeting A/57/PV.83

Resolution 57/307

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The agenda item was allocated to the Fifth Committee for its consideration, and to the Sixth Committee for the sole purpose of considering the question of an amendment to the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal.

The Committee considered the item at its 9th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 20 and 21 October, respectively. A procedural clarification was sought by Syria at the 9th meting.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 9th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Chairman of the Sixth Committee introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/58/L.7 (E, F, S, R, C, A), which had been prepared by the Bureau, proposing an amendment to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the UN Administrative Tribunal, regarding the qualifications of judges.

At the 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, following clarification offered by the Chairman as to the appropriate action to be taken by the Sixth Committee on the agenda item, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.7, as orally revised, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/521) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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

The General Assembly considered the question at its thirty-first to forty-fourth, forty-sixth, forty-eighth and fifty-first sessions (decisions 31/409, 32/440 and 33/424; resolutions 34/150, 35/166, 36/107, 37/103, 38/128, 39/75, 40/67, 41/73, 42/149, 43/162, 44/30 and 46/52; and decisions 48/412 and 51/441).

At its fifty-fifth session, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, decided to resume consideration of the legal aspects of international economic relations at its fifty-eighth session (decision 55/428).

Background documentation:

Summary records: A/C.6/55/SR.8, A/C.6/55/SR.25 and A/C.6/55/SR.26

Report of the Sixth Committee: A/55/604 (E, F, S, R, C, A)

Plenary meeting: A/55/PV.84 (E, F, S, R, C, A)

Decision: 55/428

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 9 October and 4 November 2003. A statement was made by the representative of Cuba.

The need to establish a new system of international economic relations, based on the principles of the United Nations Charter, that would promote economic development, coordinate economic cooperation, ensure justice and promote equitable access to goods and distribution of wealth for all States in an increasingly globalized world was stressed. Such an approach was consistent will the Millennium Declaration.

It was also suggested that the consideration of the agenda item in the Sixth Committee needed to be revitalized, and that an action-oriented debate be held during the next session on the basis of proposals submitted by States.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Chairman of the Sixth Committee, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced draft decision, A/C.6/58/L.24 (E, F, S, R, C, A).

The Committee adopted draft decision A/C.6/58/L.24, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/510) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

Background (Source: A/58/100)

The United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law was established by the General Assembly at its twentieth session, in 1965 (resolution 2099 (XX)). Its continuation was subsequently authorized by the Assembly at its annual sessions until its twenty-sixth session, and thereafter biennially (resolutions 2204 (XXI), 2313 (XXII), 2464 (XXIII), 2550 (XXIV), 2698 (XXV), 2838 (XXVI), 3106 (XXVIII), 3502 (XXX), 32/146, 34/144, 36/108, 38/129, 40/66, 42/148, 44/28, 46/50, 48/29, 50/43, 52/152, 54/102 and 56/77).

In the performance of the functions entrusted to him by the General Assembly, the Secretary-General is assisted by the Advisory Committee on the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law, the members of which are appointed by the Assembly.

At its fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly approved the guidelines and recommendations concerning the Programme contained in the report of the Secretary-General and adopted by the Advisory Committee, authorized the Secretary-General to carry out in 2002 and 2003 the activities specified in his report, including the provision of: (a) a number of fellowships in both 2002 and 2003, to be awarded at the request of Governments of developing countries; (b) a minimum of one scholarship in both 2002 and 2003 under the Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe Memorial Fellowship on the Law of the Sea, subject to the availability of new voluntary contributions made specifically to the fellowship fund; and (c) subject to the overall resources for the Programme, assistance in the form of a travel grant for one participant from each developing country, who would be invited to possible regional courses to be organized in 2002 and 2003; requested the Secretary-General to invite Member States and interested organizations, as well as individuals, to make voluntary contributions towards the financing of the Programme or otherwise to assist in its implementation and possible expansion; and also requested the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session on the implementation of the Programme during 2002 and 2003 and, following consultations with the Advisory Committee, to submit recommendations regarding the execution of the Programme in subsequent years (resolution 56/77).

The following 25 Member States are members of the Advisory Committee for a period of four years, beginning on 1 January 2000 and ending on 31 December 2003: Canada, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, Russian Federation, Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America and Uruguay (resolution 54/102).

A new membership of the Advisory Committee will be appointed at the fifty-eighth session for a four-year period beginning on 1 January 2004.

Background documentation:

Report of the Secretary-General: A/56/484

Summary records: A/C.6/56/SR.24 and A/C.6/56/SR.26

Report of the Sixth Committee: A/56/586

Plenary meeting: A/56/PV.85

Resolution: 56/77

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 4 November 2003. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Programme of Assistance, Mr. Thomas Kwesi Quartey (Ghana), introduced the report of the Secretary-General (A/58/446). Statements were made by the representatives of Bahrain, Thailand, the United Republic of Tanzania, Malaysia, Grenada, Cyprus and Mexico. The observer of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies also spoke.

Delegates spoke of the valuable contribution that the Programme of Assistance was making to the strengthening of the rule of law among nations and of the capacity to face new global challenges, by providing for fellowships and seminars on international law topics, particularly for the benefit of students, professors and governmental officials of developing countries. The dissemination of legal publications, including online legal publications, was also singled out as important. Speakers also called for an expansion of Programme activities, and expressed appreciation for those countries that had made voluntary contributions to the Programme.

It was suggested that the Programme activities should be widened to include not only those involved in the legal profession, but also the public at large, particularly, those in the media and secondary teachers and college professors. It was further suggested that the funding for this expansion could come from any number of foundations, e.g., Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

The Chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Programme of Assistance introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/58/L.13 (E, F, S, R, C, A)at the same meeting.

The Committee adopted draft resolution A.C.6/58/L.13, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/511) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the sixtieth session (2005)

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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).

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 56/78, the Ad Hoc Committee met from 4 to 15 February 2002. At its fifty-seventh session, the Assembly decided that the Ad Hoc Committee should be reconvened from 24 to 28 February 2003 in order to make a final attempt at consolidating areas of agreement and resolving outstanding issues, with a view to elaborating a generally acceptable instrument based on the draft articles adopted by the International Law Commission at its forty-third session and also on the discussions of the open-ended working group of the Sixth Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee and their results, as well as to recommend a form for the instrument (resolution 57/16).

Background documentation:

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: Supplement No. 22: (A/57/22)

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.18, A/C.6/57/SR.19, A/C.6/57/SR.22 and A/C.6/57/SR.25

Report of the Sixth Committee: A/57/561

Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Resolution: 57/16

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Committee considered the item at its 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 21 and 23 October and 3 and 4 November 2003. The Chairman of the 2003 Session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property presented its report (A/58/22 (E, F, S, R, C, A)) at the 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting. Statements were made by Italy (on behalf of the European Union and the acceding countries - Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, and the associated countries- Bulgaria and Romania and the EFTA country, member of the European Economic Area-Liechtenstein associated themselves with the statement), Norway, Peru (on behalf of the Rio Group), Australia, Japan, China, Republic of Korea, United States of America, the Russian Federation, Vietnam, South Africa, Ukraine, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco and Nepal.

Delegations expressed their satisfaction with the successful adoption by Ad Hoc Committee of its report containing draft articles on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property and understandings relating to some of the provisions. It was noted that the resolution of all outstanding issues on the draft articles constituted an important achievement. It was emphasized that the text, together with the set of understandings on some provisions of the draft articles, represented a carefully balanced compromise solution to the complex problems raised by the topic of state immunity.

Concerning the form that the draft articles should take, most delegations expressed their support for their adoption in the form of a legally binding instrument. In the view of some delegations, the draft articles, together with the set of understandings, could be included in such an instrument without further modification. However, the concern was expressed that the inclusion of the understandings as an integral part of the convention might cause problems in the application of the instrument. The point was also made that the current text of the draft articles, in some areas, lacked the necessary clarity and precision to be adopted as a legally binding instrument. In this regard, reference was made to the provisions concerning the definition and scope of "commercial activities", immunity for liability in respect of personal injury as well as compulsory equitable relief. On the other hand, it was noted that the adoption of such an instrument would fill a legislative gap, particularly for those States which did not have specific legislation on the matter and relied on international law. Some delegations stressed that the finalization of the draft articles would also bring uniformity in the law as well as certainty, stability, and predictability in the conduct of international legal transactions, thus encouraging international trade.

Others were of the view that more time was required for the further development of State practice in the area. Preference was therefore expressed for the adoption of the draft articles in the form of a non-binding declaration of the General Assembly.

Support was also expressed for the convening of the Ad Hoc Committee in spring of 2004 to finalize work on the subject. It was suggested that the Ad Hoc Committee be given the specific mandate of drafting preambular and final clauses for inclusion in a convention, which could be adopted at the 59th Session of the General Assembly. Some speakers stressed that the focus should be on drafting the preamble and the final clauses without reopening discussions on matters of substance, thus preserving the delicate compromises reached. Other delegations, however, also pointed out that the Ad Hoc Committee should reflect further on how to deal with and where to place the understandings in the future convention. In this regard, the point was made that the understandings only constituted an interpretative guide. Other suggestions included inserting a savings clause concerning the relationship between the draft convention and other international agreements on the same subject, a simple dispute resolution provision, and a provision forbidding reservations. The possibility of addressing disputes settlement in an optional protocol was also mentioned.

The proposal was made that the Secretariat be asked to prepare a draft of the preambular and final clauses of the proposed convention in advance of the proposed session of the Ad Hoc Committee, so that States might have the opportunity to carefully consider them.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representative of the Japan introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.20 (E, F, S, R, C, A). Australia, Denmark, Finland, France, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Vietnam joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

At the 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Norway, Poland and Portugal joined as sponsors of draft resolution, A/C.6/58/L.20. The Secretary of the Committee made a statement on the budgetary implications of the draft resolution. The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.20, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/512) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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/57/17, para. 4.)

At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly took note with satisfaction of the completion and adoption by the Commission of the Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation and commended the Commission for the progress made in its work on arbitration, insolvency law, electronic commerce, privately financed infrastructure projects, security interests and transport law (resolutions 57/17 and 57/18).

At the same session, the General Assembly emphasized the need for higher priority to be given to the work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in view of the increasing value of the modernization of international trade law for global economic development and, thus, for the maintenance of friendly relations among States; took note of the recommendation contained in the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services of the Secretariat on the in-depth evaluation of legal affairs; and requested the Secretary-General to consider measures to strengthen the secretariat of the Commission within the bounds of the resources available in the Organization, if possible during the current biennium and, in any case, during the biennium 2004-2005 (resolution 57/19).

The General Assembly decided to increase the membership of the Commission from 36 to 60 States, bearing in mind that the Commission was a technical body whose composition reflected, inter alia, the specific requirements of the subject matter; decided also that the 24 additional members of the Commission should be elected by the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session; and appealed to Governments, the relevant United Nations organs, organizations, institutions and individuals, in order to ensure full participation by the Member States in the sessions of the Commission and its working groups, to consider making voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund established to provide travel assistance to developing countries that were members of the Commission, at their request and in consultation with the Secretary-General (resolution 57/20).

Background documentation:

Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its thirty-fifth session: Supplement No. 17: (A/57/17)

Report of the Secretary-General on the increase in the membership of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law: (A/56/315)

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.4, A/C.6/57/SR.5 and A/C.6/57/SR.16, A/C.6/57/SR.17, A/C.6/57/SR.18 and A/C.6/57/SR.19

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

Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Resolutions: 57/17 to 57/20

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 6 and 21 October 2003, respectively. The Chairman of UNCITRAL at its thirty-sixth session presented the report of the Commission (A/58/17). The Legal Counsel made a statement.

Statements were made by the representatives of Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Belarus, Singapore, Uganda, Venezuela, India, Austria, Philippines, China, United States, Cyprus, Australia, Japan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Nigeria, Kenya, France, Mexico, Morocco, Algeria, Italy, Spain, Guatemala, Thailand, Republic of Korea and Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The speakers welcomed the adoption by UNCITRAL of the Model legislative provisions on privately financed infrastructure projects, supplementary to the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide of 2000 on the same subject. The request was put forward for the earliest allocation of necessary resources for the issuance of both documents in a single publication. The subjects of commercial fraud and public procurement identified by the Commission for its future work were considered appropriate.

Concern was expressed about the lack of adequate resources, including human resources, in the UNCITRAL secretariat that could jeopardise the implementation by the Commission of its increased workload, as well as the technical assistance and training, which was increasingly important for developing countries and countries in transition. Delegates called for the strengthening of the UNCITRAL secretariat within existing resources in the Office of Legal Affairs, as proposed by the Legal Counsel.

The Chairman of the Commission made a concluding statement. The secretary of the Commission and the Chairman of the Committee also spoke.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representative of Austria introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.11 (E, F, S, R, C, A). It was announced that Afghanistan, Armenia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Mongolia, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Spain, Tunisia and Ukraine had joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

The Chairman of the Committee, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.12 (E, F, S, R, C, A).

The Committee adopted draft resolutions A/C.6/58/L.11 and A/C.6/58/L.12, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/513) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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-seventh session, the General Assembly took note of the decision of the Commission to proceed with its work on the topic “International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law"”, as requested by the Assembly in its resolution 56/82; also took note of its decision to include in its programme of work the topics “Responsibility of international organizations”, “Shared natural resources” and “Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law”; recommended that the Commission continue its work on the topics in its current programme; and also recommended that the debate on the report of the International Law Commission at the fifty-eighth session of the Assembly commence on 27 October 2003 (resolution 57/21).

Background documentation:

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-fourth session: Supplement No. 10 and corrigendum: (A/57/10 and Corr.1)

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.20-28

Report of the Sixth Committee: A/57/563

Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Resolution: 57/21

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 15th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 17th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held from 27 October to 4 November and 6 November respectively. The Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Enrique Candioti (Argentina), introduced the Commission's report for 2003 (A/58/10) in parts at the 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 16th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 18th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings. The Special Rapporteur on Responsibility of International Organizations, Prof. Giorgio Gaja (Italy), also spoke.

Statements were made by the representatives of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Egypt, Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries), France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy (on behalf of the European Union, the acceding countries Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia and the associated countries Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey), Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum Group of States that maintain permanent missions in New York), New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela and Vietnam.

With regard to the topic Responsibility of international organizations, delegations praised the progress already achieved by the Commission. It was suggested that future work on the topic should take into account the particular situation of regional economic organizations, such as the European Union.

Regarding the attribution of conduct to international organizations, most speakers considered that the definition of term “rules of the organization” contained in the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations to be an adequate basis for the work of the Commission, while others emphasized the need to consider other formulations, including those contained in other conventions. However, the view was also expressed that such a reference might not be useful, since international organizations should not be able to rely on those rules to avoid responsibility under international law. It was also emphasized that any definition of the term should take into account the wide variety of rules of existing international organizations.

The speakers also acknowledged the difficulties posed by the question concerning the attribution of conduct of peacekeeping forces. In the view of some speakers, consideration of this question was premature, since the answer depended on a number of related issues, which the Commission had not had opportunity to discuss. Other speakers maintained that while the responsibility for their conduct should in principle be attributable to the United Nations where the forces were placed under U.N. command, it could be envisaged that in some situations the organization and the contributing State would share responsibility. It was noted that the question of attribution for the conduct of peacekeeping forces turned in part on whether the contributing States or the United Nations have “command and control” of the forces. It was suggested that careful attention be given to existing status of forces agreements and agreements between the contributing States and the organization.

As regards draft articles 1, 2 and 3 contained in chapter IV of the Commission's report, support was expressed for the approach taken thus far by the Commission. In particular, appreciation was expressed for the decision to follow the model adopted in the context of State responsibility, insofar as the two topics are parallel. However, many delegations stressed that analogies between the two topics cannot be drawn in all instances, since substantial differences existed as a result of the diverse nature of international organizations. Many speakers expressed support for the formulations proposed by the Commission, but numerous suggestions for revisions and clarifications were also offered. In particular, concern was expressed over the second paragraph of draft Article 1. Speakers noted that the definition of “International Organization” in draft article 2 would be a key element in codification of this topic. While general support for the approach taken by the Special Rapporteur was expressed, numerous comments and suggestions for improving the definition were offered. For example, some speakers were of the opinion that the definition should be limited to intergovernmental organizations, and that further clarification was necessary for the term “other entities”. It was further suggested that, with respect to draft Article 3, a reference to the internal rules of the organisation could be inserted.

With regard to the topic Diplomatic protection, several speakers welcomed the stated intention of the Special Rapporteur to complete the consideration of the topic during the current quinquennium.

On article 9, doubts were expressed at to the need for the inclusion of a reference to “declaratory judgments”. Concerning draft article 10, it was suggested that a reference to the “availability” of local remedies be included in paragraph (a). Regarding the exhaustion of local remedies rule, the view was expressed that there must be an assumption that the judicial system of any State is capable of providing reasonable legal remedies, and that any subjective judgement of the fairness and effectiveness of the injuring State's legal system should be avoided.

As regards draft article 17, several speakers expressed the view that the judgment in the Barcelona Traction case constituted an accurate statement of customary international law, and commended the Commission for its decision to proceed from that starting point. However, several concerns were expressed about the proposed definition of the State of nationality of a corporation, contained in paragraph 2. In addition, several speakers supported the decision of the Commission not to include a “genuine link” requirement in paragraph 2, while others regretted that decision. Others favoured the inclusion of a “genuine” or “effective” link criterion so as to deter the phenomenon of tax havens. Draft article 18 was also the source of some discussion, with speakers expressing different opinions on its validity and appropriateness. While some supported the inclusion of the two exceptions in the subparagraphs as reflecting contemporary practice in international economic relations, others expressed the concern that they were too broad and vague, thereby undermining the principle in draft article 17 whereby only the State of nationality of the corporation, as opposed to the State of nationality of the shareholders, would have the right to exercise diplomatic protection. Opposition was expressed as to the inclusion of the article 18, paragraph (b), which seemed to violate the principle of equality of treatment between national and foreign shareholders. Most speakers spoke favourably of draft articles 19 and 20. The view was expressed that a State may exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of shareholders only where the shareholders suffer from unrecovered direct losses.

As for draft article 21, the view was expressed that, although bilateral investment treaties have become prevalent, they have not become customary international law and should still be considered lex specialis. It was suggested that the provision should be applicable to the entire draft articles, so as to include, for example, protection afforded under international human rights treaties. On draft article 22, several speakers expressed doubts about the extending the scope of the draft articles to cover certain legal persons such as non-Governmental organizations. Some spoke in favour or retaining the general “mutatis mutandis” reference as proposed by the Special Rapporteur. Still others questioned its value, preferring a more in depth analysis into the rules applicable to different legal persons. Support was expressed for converting article 22 into a without prejudice clause.

Several speakers opposed the consideration of the protection of ship's crews within the context of the work on diplomatic protection. They were of the view that the issue was already sufficiently covered in the context of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was observed that it would be difficult to conclude that the Convention had enlarged the scope of the general international law institution of diplomatic protection. Others supported the extension of diplomatic protection by the flag State to crewmembers of ships regardless of their nationality. As for the protection of individuals employed by an international organization, it was pointed out that the ICJ gave clear guidance on the matter in the 1949 Reparations case, namely that agents of an international organization must be given effective protection. Some preferred excluding the issue from the scope of the draft articles entirely, or only dealing with the question of concurrent claims, namely for functional protection exercised by the organization and for diplomatic protection by the national State, in the case of injury to an employee of an international organization. Support continued to be expressed for the consideration of the exercise of diplomatic protection where a State or an international organization administers a foreign territory.

With regard to the topic international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (international liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities), support was expressed for the Commission's consideration of the liability aspects of the topic. Some speakers did not favour the development of a general international legal regime on liability. The Commission was also urged to carry out a further study on the success and failures of the existing regional and sectoral instruments concerning liability. Others favoured a regime that was general and residual in character, with some preferring that such liability be supplementary in nature as opposed to residual.

Concerning the basis of liability, several speakers preferred strict liability. Others noted that both strict and fault liability should be considered. It was also suggested that the conduct of the operator, on the basis existing legal regimes, be the focus of the topic, and that traditional exceptions to such liability be included. Such liability should emphasize the allocation of compensable loss and damage to the environment and primarily be based on proof of causation. It should also be complemented by the obligation of States to prevent transboundary harm. In terms of a further view, the primary liability should be on the person in direct command and control. Others suggested that the basis to be left to domestic law. Still others noted that State liability, even if residual, should not be ruled out. It was also suggested that the involvement of the State in supplementary schemes should be investigated. It was also suggested that the regime should be a legal regime for liability not for allocation of loss.

With regard to the standard of proof, several speakers stressed that it was not necessary to establish a strict causal connection between the act and the harm, pointing out that test of reasonableness was sufficient. It was also noted that the criteria of reasonableness should be clarified. As for the threshold of harm, several speakers supported “significant harm” as in the 2001 articles on prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities. Concerning the nature of the damage to be covered, support was expressed for the consideration of the topic to extend to the environment per se. Others expressed regret that the global commons was excluded from the scope of the topic, although it was proposed that it be added at a later stage. Some speakers expressed a preference to limit coverage to damage to persons and property. In relation to procedural and substantive requirements, it was suggested that States should make notification of the risk involved and insurance for the hazardous activity obligatory. However, others stressed the need for flexibility. Speakers also stressed the need to strengthen the polluter pays principle. It was also observed that the regime to be devised should contain framework principles allowing States the flexibility to settle disputes between them. Emphasis was also placed on the relevance of the proposition that the innocent victim should not be left to bear loss.

Concerning the form of the future instrument, several speakers noted that it was premature to decide but indicated preference for a convention. Others suggested model rules or guidelines. Some opposed the idea of a protocol as suggested by the Special Rapporteur.

With regard to the topic Unilateral Acts, while some speakers supported it continuation and stressed its importance, others were of the view that it should be discontinued. Some speakers welcomed the decision of the Special Rapporteur to single out specific types of unilateral acts (for example, recognition) in order to identify general rules applicable to all unilateral acts. Different views were expressed in regard to the recommendations of the newly established working group. Some supported the first recommendation of the Working Group relating to the definition of unilateral acts while remaining less convinced by the second.

Several speakers preferred limiting the scope of the topic to unilateral acts strictu senso. Other suggestions included: identifying a list of autonomous unilateral acts to be studied; focusing on the general and specific rules applied to the various types of such stricto sensu unilateral acts; including the conduct of States within the scope of the study; excluding acts of recognition by means of acquiescence, those based on treaty and expressed through a UN resolution or emanating from international organizations; and focusing on specific issues such as promise, waiver, acquiescence, etc. The view was also expressed that the modification, suspension or revocation of a unilateral should not be conditioned, and disagreement was expressed with the proposed principle of acta sunt servanda regarding the binding nature of a unilateral act. Several speakers were of the view that the Study on State practice would enable the Commission to assess the legal effects of unilateral acts. Several speakers expressed a preference for the eventual adoption of guidelines.

As for the topic Reservations to treaties, while support was expressed for the definition of objections proposed by the Special Rapporteur in draft guideline 2.6.1, several suggestions were made. The view was expressed that objections should be stated in a clear and unambiguous way. Support was expressed for a definition which would include both the legal effects of an objection and the intention of the objecting State. It was also pointed out that the possibility of not applying articles of a treaty between the parties should not be precluded. The view was expressed that guideline 2.6.1 on the definition of objections did not take into account all the effects that a State may wish to achieve, and support was expressed for the practice of stating the grounds for objections. It was suggested that the definition of objections should provide that objections can produce the legal effects defined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties directly or indirectly. Several speakers thought that intention is a key factor in determining whether a reaction to a reservation amounts to an objection. Some also felt that the proposed definition of objections to reservations was a narrow one and preferred the alternative option in paragraph 363 of the report. It was also suggested that non-contracting States should not be permitted to formulate objection to reservations made by contracting States. In addition, it was maintained that the depository should not express a view on the impermissibility of reservations. In terms of another suggestion, a distinction should be made between objections to permissible and impermissible reservations. Others proposed that the Commission should continue to work on the practice of States rather than codify a definition of objections to reservations. Still others doubted the desirability of defining “objections” in the guide to practice.

Concerning the possibility to extend the scope of a reservation it was observed that there was a fundamental difference between the late formulation of a reservation and the interpretation of an existing one in order to extend its range of application. Some speakers were of the view that enlargement of the scope of a reservation (guideline 2.3.5) should be viewed as late formulation of reservation. Others felt that such enlargement should be strictly limited or opposed such modification per se. Indeed, some were of the view that accepting the enlargement of the scope of reservations would set a dangerous precedent. It was also suggested that a definition of the enlargement of the scope was required as well as a clarification of the effects of objections thereto. It was pointed out that the definition of objections should be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Support was also expressed for the position of the Commission on conditional interpretative declarations.

As for the topic Shared natural resources, speakers welcomed the Commission's decision to focus on groundwater, and welcomed the cautious approach taken by the Special Rapporteur, though it was stated that additional knowledge on the technical and geological aspects was required. Reference was made to the 2001 Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the 1997 Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses on International Watercourses and G.A. Res. 1803 (XVI) on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. It was also suggested that the study required going beyond a mere analogy with the principles contained in the 1997 Convention, while others felt that stricter thresholds than those found in the 1997 Convention were required. The view was expressed that the eventual articles may need to have standards of use and prevention more strict than those applying to surface waters. Several speakers stressed that the subtopic of groundwaters required an approach dealing with their key role for sustainable development; and emphasized the need for heightened standards of due diligence, as compared to those of surface waters. It was suggested that the Commission also focus on the elimination of certain ultra-hazardous substances. Several speakers also felt that protecting groundwaters from pollution was necessary. Several speakers stressed the importance of applying the principle of national sovereignty over natural resources. Some speakers called for clarifying the scope of the topic, particularly by defining the term “groundwaters” based on hydrogeological considerations; and others emphasized the importance of having legal norms that could be understood and implemented at the technical level. The Commission was called upon to clarify the meaning of the reference in the title to “shared” resources. Several speakers proposed to amend the title of the topic to “transboundary groundwaters”. Examples were cited of regional international agreements regulating confined groundwaters, including the recent agreement between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay relating to the Guarani underground aquifer. Some support was also expressed for dealing with the subtopics of oil and gas, at a later stage, and some preferred having a final study dealing with all three subtopics. Others preferred limiting the scope of the topic to groundwaters.

Concerning the topic Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, speakers expressed support for the consideration of the topic. It was noted that the consideration of the topic was timely and important for the future of the international legal system. Several speakers noted that fragmentation had positive and negative aspects and expressed support for the substantive approach suggested by the Commission. It was observed that, despite the problems and conflict arising from fragmentation, fragmentation as such served in enhancing the effectiveness of international law. Support was expressed for the proposed focus on the substantive rather than the institutional aspects of fragmentation. It was however pointed out that judicial institutions enhance their cooperation by considering each other's jurisprudence. Others noted that the topic could not be dealt with adequately without considering the mechanisms for coordination. It was also suggested that the Commission should aim to clarify the inherent lack of coherence and certainty in international law.

In relation to the sub-topic concerning the function and scope of the lex specialis rule and the question of self contained regimes, it was suggested that the Commission also examine the impact of measures undertaken by regional arrangements under chapter VIII of the Charter. It was also suggested that the focus should be on examining the lex specialis rule rather than the question of self contained regimes.

Concerning the final outcome for the topic, it was suggested that the Commission should avoid embarking on a purely academic exercise. Indeed, several speakers welcomed the indication that the Commission would prepare guidelines on the topic, which would distinguish it from a purely academic exercise. Others expressed caution, noting that it would be realistic to limit the scope of the guidelines. Others noted that the topic was particularly broad and theoretical, and therefore that the topic did not lend itself to the drafting of articles nor guidelines. It was also noted that the timetable proposed for the remaining part of the quinquennium seemed unrealistic.

With regard to the working methods and programme of work of the Commission, speakers commented on the need for streamlining the work of the Commission by eliminating topics in which little progress was being made, such as the topic “Unilateral Acts of States” . Hope was expressed that in its next report, the Commission could indicate its goals for the current quinquennium. Support was also expressed for exempting the Report of the Commission and those of the Special Rapporteurs from a maximum page requirement, and for the position taken by the Commission on honoraria for its members. It was also suggested that future topics address areas where legal regulation is both lacking and desirable. The issue of protecting vulnerable populations during internal conflicts or from man-made or natural disasters was suggested as a possible future topic. On the other hand, doubt was expressed regarding appropriateness of the proposed topics of “collective security” and “the principle of aut dedere aut judicare.”

States also made suggestions with regard to improving the debate of the Sixth Committee on the report of the Commission. In particular, support was for the joint proposal made by Sweden and Austria. Speakers welcomed the decision of the Bureau to hold informal consultations on portions of the Commission's report. Support was furthermore expressed for the International Law Seminar and appeals were made for voluntary contributions. It was also suggested that technical assistance be offered to least developed States in order to facilitate their review of the report of the Commission.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 6 November, the vice-Chairman, Ms. Gaile Ramoutar (Trinidad and Tobago) introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.25 (E, F, S, R, C, A), on behalf of the Bureau.

The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.25, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/514) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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-seventh session, the General Assembly endorsed the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country contained in paragraph 35 of its report; requested the host country to continue to take all measures necessary to prevent any interference with the functioning of missions; took note of the opinion of the Legal Counsel concerning the Parking Programme for Diplomatic Vehicles and of the positions expressed on that issue at the 213th meeting of the Committee, including the commitment of the host country to maintaining appropriate conditions for the functioning of the delegations and missions accredited to the United Nations in a manner that was fair, non-discriminatory, efficient and consistent with international law; and requested the Secretary-General to remain actively engaged in all aspects of the relations of the United Nations with the host country (resolution 57/22).

Background documentation:

Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, Supplement No. 26: (A/57/26)

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.27 and 28

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

Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Resolution: 57/22

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 5 November 2003. The Chairman of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country introduced the report of the Committee (A/58/26). Statements were made by the representatives of Malaysia, Italy (on behalf of the European Union), Cuba, Sierra Leone and the United States of America.

Appreciation was expressed for the continued commitment of the host country to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Headquarters Agreement to provide full facilities for the performance of the missions accredited to the United Nations, as well as for its efforts to continue to ensure the security of those missions and the safety of their personnel.

With respect to the Parking Programme for Diplomatic Vehicles adopted in 2002, hope was expressed that it would be implemented in a fair, non-discriminatory and effective manner and consistent with international law. It was also stressed that the programme should be carefully monitored with a view to addressing practical difficulties experienced by Missions.

Delegations also referred to instances of travel restrictions and delays in the issuance of entry visas, and urged the host country to resolve existing problems in conformity with the Headquarters Agreement.

The host country confirmed its commitment to fulfil its obligations under international law.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

The Chairman of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/58/L.23 (E, F, S, R, C, A),at the same meeting.

The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.23 without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/515) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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-sixth sessions (resolutions 52/160, 53/105, 54/105, 55/155 and 56/85).

At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly welcomed the important work accomplished by the Preparatory Commission in the completion of its mandate in accordance with resolution F of the Rome Conference, as well as the holding of the first session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (3 to 10 September 2002) and its adoption of a number of important instruments mandated under resolution F; requested the Secretary-General to undertake the preparations necessary for holding the first and second resumptions of the first session of the Assembly of States Parties (3 to 7 February 2003 and 21 to 23 April 2003, respectively), the meeting of the Committee on Budget and Finance (4 to 8 August 2003) and the second session of the Assembly of States Parties (8 to 12 September 2003), including the making available of the necessary secretariat services; decided that the costs accrued to the United Nations as a result of the implementation of the mandating resolution should be paid in advance to the Organization; and requested the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session on the implementation of the resolution (resolution 57/23).

Background documentation:

Report of the Secretary-General on the establishment of the International Criminal Court: (A/57/403)

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.13, A/C.6/57/SR.14 and A/C.6/57/SR.15 and A/C.6/57/SR.20

Report of the Sixth Committee: A/57/565

Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Resolution: 57/23

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Committee considered the item at its 9th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 20, 21 and 23 October 2003. The President of the Assembly of States Parties made a statement. Statements were also made by the representatives of Norway, Italy (on behalf of the European Union and acceding countries- Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the associated countries - Bulgaria and Romania, and the EFTA country, member of the European Economic Area-Iceland), China, Liechtenstein, United Republic of Tanzania, Cuba, Republic of Korea, Uganda, Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of CARICOM), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Peru (on behalf of the Rio Group), Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, Gabon, Argentina, Australia, San Marino, Japan, Sierra Leone, New Zealand, Jordan, Ukraine, Senegal, Lesotho, Nigeria, Netherlands and observer representative of International Committee of the Red Cross.

Delegations welcomed the significant progress made in the establishment of the International Criminal Court since the entry into force of the Rome Statute. In this regard, some delegations made particular reference to the election of the Judges, the Prosecutor, the Deputy Prosecutor, the Registrar and the Board of Directors of the Victims Trust Fund. They pledged their continuing support for the Court, as a vital instrument to fight impunity and reaffirmed the need to ensure the universality of the Statute. In this connection, States that had not yet done so were encouraged to become parties to the Statute

Some delegations expressed regret over efforts to obtain exceptions from prosecutions through adoption of Security Council resolutions or bilateral agreements. Some delegations alluded to Security Council resolutions 1422 (2002) and 1487 (2003) and expressed the hope that they were only transitional measures, since the Court would soon demonstrate that it was an independent and impartial institution. However, the point was made doubting that the Rome Statute had fully overcome the potential of being used as a political tool to serve the interests of the powerful States. A point was also made that due to difficulties the Security Council has recently been reluctant to establish Ad Hoc tribunals, therefore it was felt that the ICC was an appropriate forum for referral of situations where crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court is believed to have been committed.

Delegations also welcomed the operational progress made by the various organs of Court. In particular, they were encouraged by the Prosecutor's efforts to formulate a prosecutorial policy in a transparent manner as well as its emphasis on the principle of complementarity. While the efforts to interpret and implement the principle was welcomed, the point was also made that further work was required to clarify how it would be effected in practice. Some delegations also noted with interest the indication that the Prosecutor intended to focus first on the situation in Ituri.

Concerning issues that required follow-up, support was expressed for the continuing relationship between the ICC and the United Nations. In this regard, delegations stressed the need to conclude the relationship agreement and for the Secretary-General to be given the necessary authority to negotiate it on behalf of the United Nations. States were also encouraged to become party to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities. Delegations further expressed their gratitude to the Secretary-General for the assistance of the United Nations Secretariat in its capacity as temporary Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties. Moreover, delegations welcomed the cooperation between the Court and the host country and urged the early conclusion of the Headquarters Agreement. Delegations also highlighted the importance of domestic implementation of the Rome Statute. In this regard, some delegations emphasized the need for technical assistance. Delegations also expressed the need to secure the ICC financially. In this regard, States were encouraged to pay up their assessed contributions on time.

Delegations also stressed the importance of the work of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression.

A number of speakers emphasized the need to respect geographical distribution of the officials of the Court, and urged that the second deputy prosecutor to be elected from among candidates of the African region.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the The representative of the Netherlands introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.14 (E, F, S, R, C, A), and orally revised it.

At the 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.14, as orally revised, without a vote.The delegation of the United States of America made a statement before and after the Committee took action on the resolution.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/516) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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, 55/157 and 56/86).

At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly decided that the Special Committee should hold its next session from 7 to 17 April 2003, and requested it to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session (resolution 57/24).

At the same session, the General Assembly requested the Special Committee, at its session in 2003, 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 under Chapter VII of the Charter; decided to consider, within the Sixth Committee or a working group of that Committee, at the fifty-eighth 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-eighth session (resolution 57/25).

The Special Committee met at United Nations Headquarters from 7 to 17 April 2003.

Background documentation:

Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization: Supplement No. 33: (A/57/33)

Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions: (A/57/165 and Add.1)

Report of the Secretary-General on the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council: (A/57/370)

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.11, A/C.6/57/SR.12, A/C.6/57/SR.16, A/C.6/57/SR.22 and A/C.6/57/SR.25

Report of the Sixth Committee: A/57/566
Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Resolutions: 57/24, 57/25 and 57/26

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 5th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 9, 10, 23 and 27 October and 6 November 2003, respectively. The Vice-Chairman of the 2003 session of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization introduced the report of the Special Committee (A/58/33), at the 4th meeting. Statements were made by the representatives of Cuba, Venezuela, India, Italy (on behalf of the European Union, the acceding and the associated countries), Philippines, Guatemala, Algeria, Ukraine, China, the Russian Federation, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Turkey, Japan, Sudan, Costa Rica, Belarus, Malaysia, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, Costa Rica, Morocco, Syrian Arab Republic, Nepal and Nigeria. The Secretary of the Committee also spoke.

Concerning the Implementation of the Charter provisions related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions, delegations reaffirmed the usefulness of sanctions as an important tool in the maintenance of international peace and security. However, concern was expressed over the effect of sanctions on the civilian population and on third States. Some delegations stressed that sanctions should be imposed as a last resort after all peaceful means of dispute have been exhausted; that sanctions should be targeted, imposed for limited durations, subject to regular review and removed as soon as their intended purpose is achieved. It was necessary to assess their humanitarian impact without compromising on their effectiveness. Some delegations lamented the lack of consistency in the imposition of sanctions, and noted that the whole question was linked to the needed reform of the Security Council. Other delegations welcomed the improvements made in the work of the sanctions committees and urged expeditious conclusion of the work of the Security Council working group on general sanctions.

Some delegations welcomed the recommendations of the expert group meeting (A/53/312). In particular, support was expressed for the recommendation that the costs involved as a result of the imposition of sanctions be borne by all member States from the regular budget; as well as the possible appointment by the Secretary-General of a Special representative in cases where sanctions adversely affected third States. Support was also expressed for the grant of economic or trade concessions to third States in order to minimize the effects of sanctions as proposed by the expert group meeting. Other delegations suggested that a voluntary trust fund should be established. Some delegations further stressed the importance of considering the recommendations in an appropriate framework, such as a working group of the Sixth Committee. Others pointed out that such recommendations should be discussed in the light of recent developments and processes, in particular the focus towards targeted sanctions.

Support was also expressed for the Russian Federation proposal on basic conditions and standard criteria for the introduction of sanctions. However, the point was made that the work of the Committee on this topic should be more structured. The wish was expressed that the proposal could be finalized in 2004. There was also support for the proposal by Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on strengthening certain principles concerning the impact and application of sanctions, and some delegations noted that it complemented the proposal by the Russian Federation and encouraged the sponsor to prepare a revised text for 2004.. However, others noted that the Charter provisions on the matter were quite clear.

Some support was expressed for 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 field. 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.

Support was expressed for the continuation of work in the field of the peaceful settlement of disputes. The important role of the International Court of Justice was stressed in this connection.

Concerning the future of the Trusteeship Council, views were expressed against either its abolishment or changes in its mandate, since it should be dealt with in the overall context of the reform of the United Nations.

Support was expressed for the proposal by Japan, the Republic of Korea and Thailand on the working methods of the Special Committee. A point was made that the Committee should avoid duplicating the work of other bodies of the Organization. It was noted, however, that items should be assigned to the Committee on the basis of its mandate. Objections were also voiced, however, against the suggestions to limit the duration of the Committee's sessions and to discontinue the consideration of the proposals solely because of the absence of consensus regarding their usefulness.

With regard to the Repertory of Practice of United Nations organs and the Repertoire of the Security Council, delegations stressed that these publications preserved the institutional memory of the Organization and welcomed the efforts of the Secretary-General to eliminate the backlog. Some delegations supported the recommendations of the Special Committee relating to these publications and commended the placement of Repertory studies on the Internet as well as the creativity of the Secretariat in addressing the backlog. However, considering the difficulties that many countries have in accessing the Internet, the view was expressed that placement of the studies on the Internet should not replace the issuance of the printed version of the publications. Some expressed their surprise at the elimination of the Repertory from the budget and urged that the 6th Committee support the appropriate funding of the Repertory.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representative of the Russian Federation introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.17 (E, F, S, R, C, A), entitled “Implementation of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions”. Chile, Egypt, Sierra Leone, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Uganda joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

At the 14th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representative of Egypt introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.18 (E, F, S, R, C, A), entitled “Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization”.

At the 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representatives of Mexico, Italy (on behalf of the European Union), Turkey, Syrian Arab Republic, United States of America, Egypt, Pakistan and Sierra Leone spoke.

The Chief of the Political, Legal and Humanitarian Service of the Programme Planning and Budget Division of the Secretariat also spoke.

The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.18 without a vote. The representatives of Canada (also on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland), United States of America, Japan and Italy (on behalf of the European Union) made statements in explanation of their positions before taking action on the draft resolution. The representatives of Venezuela, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Mexico, Guatemala, Morocco, Fiji, Brazil and Thailand made statements in explanation of their positions after taking action on the draft resolution.

Algeria, Brazil, China, Malaysia and Turkey joined as sponsors of draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.17. The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.17, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/517) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

Measures to eliminate international terrorism

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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-sixth sessions (resolutions 52/164, 52/165, 53/108, 54/110, 55/158 and 56/88).

At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly welcomed the progress attained in the elaboration of a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism; decided that the Ad Hoc Committee should meet from 31 March to 2 April 2003 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, 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, and that the work should continue, if necessary, during the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly, 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-eighth session on progress made in the implementation of its mandate (resolution 57/27).

Background documentation:

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 on its sixth session, Supplement No. 37: (A/57/37 and Corr.1)

Report of the Secretary-General on measures to eliminate international terrorism: (A/57/183 and Corr.1 and Add.1)

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.7, A/C.6/57/SR.8, A/C.6/57/SR.9, A/C.6/57/SR.10, A/C.6/57/SR.17, A/C.6/57/SR.26 and A/C.6/57/SR.28

Report of the Sixth Committee: A/57/567

Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Resolution: 57/27

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

Discussion in the Working Group (see A/C.6/58/L.10)

The General Assembly, in its resolution 57/27 of 19 November 2002, decided that the Ad Hoc Committee established by resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 should meet from 31 March to 2 April 2003 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-eighth session of the Assembly, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee. At its 29th meeting, on 2 April 2003, the Ad Hoc Committee decided to recommend that the Sixth Committee, at the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly, consider establishing such a working group, if appropriate.

At its 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, on 6 October 2003, the Sixth Committee established a Working Group and elected 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 three meetings, on 6, 8 and 10 October 2003. At its first meeting, the Working Group decided that the members of the Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee elected at the latter's seventh session would continue to act as Friends of the Chairman during the meeting of the Working Group.

The Working Group had before it the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the work of its seventh session, containing, inter alia, the reports of the coordinators on the results of the informal bilateral consultations on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and on the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism; the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the work of its sixth session, containing, inter alia, a discussion paper prepared by the Bureau on the preamble and article 1 of the draft comprehensive convention, a list of proposals made during the informal consultations on the preamble and article 1 of the draft comprehensive convention appended to the report of the coordinator on the results of the informal consultations in the Ad Hoc Committee, the informal texts of articles 2 and 2 bis of the draft comprehensive convention prepared by the Coordinator, the texts of articles 3 to 17 bis and 20 to 27 of the draft comprehensive convention prepared by the Friends of the Chairman and two texts relating to article 18 of the draft comprehensive convention, one circulated by the Coordinator for discussion and the other proposed by the States members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The Working Group also had before it the report of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee established at the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly (A/C.6/57/L.9), containing in its annexes I.A and B the lists of written amendments and proposals submitted in connection with the elaboration of a draft comprehensive convention, the revised text of a draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism proposed by the Friends of the Chairman (A/C.6/53/L.4, annex I) and written amendments and proposals submitted by delegations in relation to that instrument

At its 1st meeting, on 6 October, the Working Group adopted its work programme and decided to proceed with discussions in informal consultations. The Chairman appointed Carlos Fernando Díaz Paniagua (Costa Rica) as the Coordinator for the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and Albert Hoffmann (South Africa), as the Coordinator for the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. The Chairman also invited interested delegations to approach him on the question of convening a high-level conference, under the auspices of the United Nations, to formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.

The Chairman urged delegations to focus on ways and means of resolving outstanding issues rather than engaging in the repetition of national positions, which would not be fruitful in advancing the work at this stage. He also called upon delegations to turn their minds to new constructive approaches that would enable the Working Group to move forward to a conclusion.

An informal summary by the Chairman of an exchange of views that took place at the 1st and the 2nd meetings of the Working Group is contained in annex III below. The informal summary is intended for reference purposes only and not as a record of discussions.

On 7 October, informal consultations were held in two stages. The first, coordinated by Mr. Paniagua, was devoted to the draft comprehensive convention. In the second stage, the informal consultations coordinated by Mr. Hoffmann focused on outstanding issues pertaining to the draft international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. The Coordinators also held bilateral consultations on 7 and 8 October.

At the 2nd meeting of the Working Group, on 8 October, the Coordinators presented their oral reports on the results of the informal consultations; those reports are contained in annex II below, also for reference purposes only and not as a record of the discussions. The Chairman also informed the Working Group that in his contacts with several delegations on the question of convening a high-level conference, they had informed him that consultations on this question were continuing at a political level in their capitals. They had expressed the wish that the item be kept on the agenda in accordance with General Assembly resolution 57/27.

The Working Group considered and adopted its report at its 3rd meeting, on 10 October.

At its 3rd meeting, the Working Group decided to refer the consideration of the report to the Sixth Committee. The Working Group also decided, bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 57/27, to recommend to the Sixth Committee that work 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 already accomplished.

Discussion in the Plenary of the Sixth Committee:

The Committee considered the item at its 6th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 7th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 8th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 9th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 15, 17 and 20 October and 3 to 5 November 2003, respectively. At the 6th meeting, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and of the Working Group on terrorism introduced the reports of the two bodies (A/58/37 and Corr.1 and A/C.6/58/L.10).

Statements were made by the representatives of Norway, Peru (on behalf of the Rio Group), Venezuela, United Arab Emirates, Cuba, Singapore, Iran (Islamic Republic of)(on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference), Switzerland, India, Bahrain, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Uganda, Italy (on behalf of the European Union and the acceding countries - Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, and the associated countries - Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey and the EFTA country, member of the European Economic Area, Liechtenstein), Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Turkey, Pakistan, Ecuador, Zambia, Belarus, Tunisia, Burkina Faso, Yemen, Republic of Korea, Mozambique, Suriname, Kenya, Algeria, Mali, Malaysia, Swaziland, Kuwait, Morocco, South Africa, United States of America, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Myanmar, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Jordan, China, Madagascar, Viet Nam (on behalf of the ASEAN countries), Armenia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Serbia and Montenegro, Russian Federation, New Zealand (on behalf of the Members of the Pacific Islands Forum), Brazil, Australia, Guatemala, Qatar, Oman, Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Maldives, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Egypt, Niger, Kazakhstan, Gabon, Ghana, Thailand, Israel, Nigeria, Mexico, the Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada, Colombia, Cameroon, Azerbaijan (on behalf of the GUUAM Member States), Nepal, Indonesia and Senegal.

The speakers condemned the recent terrorist attacks, including attacks against the UN headquarters in Baghdad, and international terrorism and stated their support for the work of the Sixth Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on the matter. They stressed the need for the early completion of the work on the draft comprehensive convention on the suppression of terrorism and the draft convention on nuclear terrorism and their adoption. A point was made that both draft conventions should be considered independently so as to speed up their finalization.

Some speakers reiterated their position as regards the need to formulate the legal definition of terrorism, to distinguish between terrorism and the legitimate fight of peoples for their right to self-determination and to clarify the relationship of the draft comprehensive convention with the existing conventions.

They also viewed State terrorism as the most dangerous form of this crime and referred to the situations in various countries in this connection.

Support was expressed for the holding of an international conference on terrorism under the 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. It was also stated that the conference should have a substantive agenda.

It was stressed that the United Nations should continue to play a central role in international cooperation in suppressing the crime of terrorism, which should be based on the Charter of the United Nations and norms of international law, including those relating to human rights. The speakers stressed their commitment to contributing to the work of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) in ensuring effective implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) and other relevant resolutions and highlighted their activities at the national and international levels. However, a point was made that not every State had concluded that terrorism was unacceptable in all circumstances. A call for developing measures to ensure compliance under Resolutions 1373 and 1456 was also made. It was proposed that a dialogue between the CTC and the Sixth Committee based on the communications addressed by the Chairman of the CTC to the Sixth Committee during its consideration of the topic on terrorism be established. It was further suggested that a General Assembly resolution be adopted, by consensus, to deliver a strong message that all States reject terrorism and urging States, inter alia, to adopt counter-terrorist measures, become parties to relevant conventions, enhance their cooperation and capacity to combat terrorism, as well as requesting all parts of the United Nations system to assist the CTC. A suggestion was also made to establish a permanent CTC secretariat.

Some speakers stressed the need to address the root causes of terrorism, to avoid the arbitrary unilateral use of force and double standards in dealing with terrorism, and to avoid linking terrorism with specific religions or cultures and relying on the arbitrary unilateral use of force in dealing with terrorism. In particular, it was pointed out that the elaboration of the Code of conduct between States to combat terrorism could address issues of security and development in a mutually complementary fashion. A point was made that it was also necessary to combat transnational organized crime, illicit drug trafficking and money laundering linked to terrorism. States were also urged to become parties to relevant legal instruments.

The representatives of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

The representative of Australia introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.19 (E, F, S, R, C, A)at the 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 3 November 2003, and orally revised it. The Chairman made a statement at the 21st meeting, held on 4 November 2003.

At the 22nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 5 November 2003, The Secretary of the Committee made a statement on the budgetary implications of draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.19.

The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.19, as orally revised at its 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/518) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

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

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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 that session, the Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the recommendations made by the Secretary-General in his report (A/55/637) on measures to strengthen and enhance the protective legal regime for United Nations and associated personnel (resolution 56/89).

At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly decided that the Ad Hoc Committee should reconvene from 24 to 28 March 2003, and should continue the discussion on measures to enhance the existing protective legal regime for United Nations and associated personnel; requested the Committee to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session; recommended that the Secretary-General continue to seek the inclusion of, and that host countries include, key provisions of the Convention in future as well as, if necessary, in existing status-of-forces, status-of-mission and host country agreements; recommended also that the Secretary-General advise the Security Council or the General Assembly, as appropriate, where in his assessment circumstances would support a declaration of exceptional risk for the purposes of article 1 (c) (ii) of the Convention; requested the Secretary-General to prepare model or standardized provisions for incorporation into the agreements concluded between the United Nations and humanitarian non-governmental organizations or agencies, and to make available to Member States the names of organizations or agencies that had concluded such agreements; and also requested him to report to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session on the measures taken to implement the resolution (resolution 57/28).

Background documentation:

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Scope of Legal Protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel - Supplement No. 52: (A/57/52)

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.5, A/C.6/57/SR.6, A/C.6/57/SR.16, A/C.6/57/SR.22 and A/C.6/57/SR.25

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

Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Resolution: 57/28

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

Discussion in the Working Group (A/C.6/58/L.16 and Corr.1 (French, Russian, Arabic and Chinese only))

The General Assembly, in its resolution 56/89 of 12 December 2001, decided to establish the Ad Hoc Committee on the Scope of Legal Protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel to consider the recommendations made by the Secretary-General in his report on the measures to strengthen and enhance the protective legal regime for United Nations and associated personnel. In accordance with paragraph 7 of the same resolution, membership on the Ad Hoc Committee was open to all States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Ad Hoc Committee met from 1 to 5 April 2002, and presented a report to the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session.

Subsequently, the Ad Hoc Committee was reconvened, from 24 to 28 Mrch 2003, pursuant to paragraph 8 of General Assembly resolution 57/28 of 19 November 2002, and continued the discussion on measures to enhance the existing protective legal regime for United Nations and associated personnel. The proceedings of the Ad Hoc Committee are summarized in its report to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session.

During the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly, following informal consultations, the Sixth Committee, at its 1st meeting, on 29 September 2003, established a Working Group on the Scope of Legal Protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel in order to continue the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Sixth Committee, at the same meeting, elected Christian Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) as the Chairman of the Working Group.

The Working Group held two meetings and a number of informal consultations from 13 to 17 October 2003. Because of the importance of the subject under consideration, the Working Group decided, at its first meeting, on 13 October 2003, to hold the formal meetings of the Working Group in open sessions.

The Working Group had before it the report of the last session of the Ad Hoc Committee and the report of the Secretary-General, prepared pursuant to the request by the General Assembly in its resolution 57/28, and taking into account the recommendations of the last session of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Working Group also had before it a letter dated 20 August 2003 from the Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.

The Working Group considered and adopted its report at its 2nd meeting, on 17 October 2003.

At its 2nd meeting, on 17 October, the Working Group decided to refer the report to the Sixth Committee for its consideration and recommended that the Ad Hoc Committee established under General Assembly resolution 56/89 be reconvened with a mandate to expand the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, including, inter alia, by means of a legal instrument.

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

General statements

Delegations condemned acts of violence against United Nations and associated personnel and paid tribute to the United Nations staff members who lost their lives, inter alia, in the 19 August 2003 attack in Baghdad.

Some speakers welcomed the report of the Secretary-General on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel (A/58/187) and Security Council resolution 1502 (2003). With reference to the Secretary-General's report, concern was expressed that only in very few cases were the perpetrators of the acts of violence against United Nations and associated personnel brought to justice. In response, it was noted that the statistics provided by the Secretary-General in his report, as well as recent casualties, could not serve as evidence of the flaws in the existing legal regime of the protection of United Nations and associated personnel. In their view, in practice, no legal measures could ensure the safety of United Nations and associated personnel without appropriate measures being taken by host States and the Secretary-General. Some speakers called for the universal adherence to the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel and the implementation of the short-term measures enumerated in General Assembly resolution 57/28 and Security Council resolution 1502 (2003). Other delegations, while also subscribing to the goal of universality of the Convention and the implementation of the short-term measures, reiterated their position that longer-term solutions were required to address the shortcoming of the existing protective legal regime of United Nations and associated personnel. The view was also expressed that "universality", in the context of the 1994 Convention, had two aspects: the universal ratification of the Convention as well as its universal application, for which the expansion of its scope was necessary. Some delegations expressed the view that it was very important to maintain the legal regime under the existing Convention when examining ways of expanding its scope of application.

Consideration of the proposal by New Zealand (A/AC.264/2003/DP.1) and amendment thereto by the European Union (A/AC.264/2003/DP.3)

Some delegations supported the New Zealand proposal (A/AC.264/2003/DP.1) and the amendment thereto by the European Union (A/AC.264/2003/DP.3). They called for the elimination of the requirement of declaration of exceptional risk and reiterated their position that the Convention should automatically apply to all operations under United Nations control and authority without distinction. The expansion of the protective legal regime to all United Nations operations and presences raised objections, in particular on the ground that such an expansion would make the existing legal regime even more imbalanced by placing a greater burden on host States.

A discussion of the usefulness of the term “operations” took place, which seemed problematic to a number of delegations. Specifically, delegations expressed their reservations regarding the definition of the term in paragraph 7 of the Secretary-General's report (A/55/637). Some delegations expressed their willingness to explore different options to give a more precise definition of United Nations operations to which an expanded legal regime would apply, in particular by reflecting therein the notion of risk, with a view to dispensing with the declaration of exceptional risk that had proven to be an obstacle in the practical application of the Convention. The point was made that only those United Nations operations that were inherently risky, such as political, peace-building and humanitarian operations, should be within the expanded scope of the protective regime. Some operations and presences, such as those established by headquarters agreements, should be excluded. Support was expressed for the identification of categories of missions to be covered by the expanded regime on the basis of the designation of operations rather than situations in which they existed. A suggestion was made that a list could also be elaborated containing United Nations operations intended to be excluded from the expanded scope of the Convention. Conversely, it was noted that any arbitrary lists or lists entailing politicization should be avoided. There was agreement that it was worth exploring a definition of the term “operations” that did not cover all United Nations operations and was sufficiently clear.

Proposal by Jordan

Some delegations welcomed the proposal by Jordan, which, in their view, contained innovative ideas that preserved State sovereignty, sought to fill the gaps found in the Convention and addressed the concerns that had heretofore hindered universal adherence to the Convention.

Other delegations, felt that the proposal was too restrictive in the light of the way in which the element of risk was retained, and expressed concern that it could even result in reducing the scope of application of the Convention. According to another view, the retention of the notion of risk could be considered, subject to the setting forth of a clear and objective threshold.

The point was made that the proposal sought to deal with specific “situations”, yet these tended to be fluid, requiring constant reassessment and analysis of the new circumstances and making the application of the Convention difficult. Therefore, preference was expressed for following the approach of discussing the types of United Nations operations, wherein certain categories posed risk by virtue of their very nature, that would be covered by the enlargement of the scope of the Convention. In this connection, while favouring the extension of the scope of application to all United Nations operations, it was noted that discussions could proceed on a purpose-specific definition of United Nations operations.

However, the point was also made that assessment of risky situations by national institutions such as the judiciary for purposes of applying legal obligations is not something alien to international law enforcement instruments.

It was also stated that subparagraph (b) of the proposal might affect other provisions of the Convention that had been carefully crafted in order to avoid conflict with the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In this connection, the view was also expressed that it was not necessarily easy to characterize a situation as being one of armed conflict and that it was precisely in such “grey” areas where United Nations operations were more exposed to hazard.

With regard to subparagraph (c) of the proposal, the point was made that the determination of whether or not a State exercised or was unwilling to exercise its national jurisdiction over relevant crimes constituted a subjective assessment, which raised the issue of who would make such a determination, one fraught with political connotations. Other Contracting States might be wary of making such an assessment. In this connection, attention was drawn to article 22 of the Convention, providing for a mechanism for dispute settlements. Some delegations, however, expressed the view that this mechanism might be too cumbersome and too slow in practice. It was noted that specificity and precision were vital to a law enforcement instrument.

Some delegations raised questions about the meaning of subparagraph (d), which was intended to apply to situations where there was no central government that could establish or provide legal protection. In their view the Convention could apply only if there was a government, since the responsibility is imposed on the government. For this reason they found the proposed subparagraph in contradiction with article 10 of the Convention, requiring a State to establish jurisdiction over the crimes listed in the Convention.

On the other hand, it was pointed out that subparagraph (d) was consistent with article 10 since a State party may establish jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its territory.

Some delegations expressed support for the proposed new article (xx) on the grounds that it would promote the universality of the Convention by eliminating a major obstacle to the adherence of some States. While supporting the spirit and intent of the article, the view was expressed that an exception should be made as regards personnel engaged in peacekeeping operations, with respect to whom the contributing State should exercise jurisdiction, unless unwilling to do so. In such cases, upon a decision by the Security Council, the host State would be able to exercise its jurisdiction. It was suggested that the proposed article appear as a separate article without any link to articles 7, 8 or 9 of the Convention, whose language should be preserved.

Form of the document to be elaborated

The Working Group considered the following options with regard to the form of the document to be elaborated on the scope of the 1994 Convention: (a) additional protocol; (b) optional protocol; (c) amendment to the 1994 Convention; (d) stand-alone protocol. It was generally agreed that setting up a new legal regime should not disturb the existing legal regime under the 1994 Convention. Therefore, several delegations expressed their preference for drafting a separate stand-alone document or an optional protocol. An optional protocol was preferable for some delegations because it would preserve the integrity of the existing legal regime while allowing States to take on additional obligations if they so wished. It was also pointed out that the creation of competing legal regimes had to be avoided. A view was expressed that certain provisions of the 1994 Convention may need to be reviewed if its scope is expanded. Yet a further opinion was expressed that the Convention had some problems that could be eliminated only by amending it. A number of delegations rejected the idea of an amendment to the Convention and were generally favourable to the idea of drafting a protocol, while reserving their position on the eventual relationship between the protocol and the Convention until its content had been worked out. It was agreed that any modification to the Convention should be in the form of a protocol, while several delegations made it clear that their position on what type of protocol they would prefer was dependent on the actual contents of such a protocol.

Proposal by Costa Rica

In introducing the proposal, the sponsor noted that the protective legal regimes under the Convention and international humanitarian law were mutually exclusive. The 1994 Convention had, however, created an overlap between them. The proposal was introduced for discussion at a later stage.

Discussion in the Plenary of the Sixth Committee

The Committee considered the item at its 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 23 October and 3 and 4 November 2003, respectively. The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Working Group of the Sixth Committee on the subject introduced the report of the Ad Hoc Committee (A/58/52) and the report of the Working Group (A/C.6/58/L.16 and Corr.1 (F, R, A, C only)) at the 13th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting. The statements were made by the representatives of Congo, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Uganda, United States of America, Canada, Republic of Korea, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Norway, Croatia, Timor-Leste, Kenya, Argentina, Japan, Italy (on behalf of the European Union, the acceding countries Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia and the associated countries Bulgaria and Romania) and Lebanon.

The speakers condemned the 19 August 2003 attack against United Nations personnel in Baghdad and paid tribute to the victims. Concern was expressed regarding the high rate of impunity for the acts of violence committed against United Nations and associated personnel worldwide. Delegations called for urgent strong measures to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice. ICC role in this regard was highlighted. Some delegations also urged to improve security and safety of personnel through preventive practical measures of protection on the ground, including through the reinforcement of the UN security management system.

Inclusion by the Secretary-General of key provisions into SOFAs, SOMAs and host country agreements was welcomed. The Secretary-General was urged to continue his efforts in the implementation of the short-term measures enumerated in General Assembly resolution 57/28. While stressing the importance of those measures, some delegations reiterated their positions that the scope of the application of the Convention had to be expanded by eliminating the requirement therein of the declaration of exceptional risk. General satisfaction was expressed on the emerging consensus on this point in the Working Group at the current session. Delegations reiterated their positions, in particular, that the existing legal regime under the 1994 Convention should be preserved; it would therefore be preferable to draft an optional protocol or a stand-alone instrument to expand the existing protective legal regime; and the expanded legal regime should achieve a reasonable balance between the concerns of international civil servants and host countries. Divergent views were expressed on the need to retain the element of risk: while some delegations were of the view that only "risky" operations should be covered by the expanded legal regime, others supported the automatic application of the new legal regime to all operations under the United Nations authority and control. It was stressed that designation of operations rather than situations in which they existed should be a determinative factor in identifying "risky" operations.

Support was expressed for reconvening the Ad Hoc Committee in 2004 with a new mandate as recommended by the Working Group (A/C.6/58/L.16, para. 8).

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 20th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representative of New Zealand introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.22 (E, F, S, R, C, A). Cyprus, Honduras, Mali, New Zealand, Thailand and Timor-Leste joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

At the 21st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Norway, Poland and Portugal joined as sponsors of draft resolution, A/C.6/58/L.20. The Secretary of the Committee made a statement on the budgetary implications of the draft resolution. The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.20, without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/519) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

International convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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).

At its fifty-seventh session, the General Assembly welcomed the reports of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings and of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 56/93 of 12 December 2001 and decided that a working group of the Sixth Committee should be convened during the fifty-eighth session of the Assembly from 29 September to 3 October 2003 in order to continue the work undertaken during the fifty-seventh session (decision 57/512).

Background documentation:

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings,Supplement No. 51: A/57/51

Report of the Working Group established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 56/93 of 12 December 2001: A/C.6/57/L.4

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.16, A/C.6/57/SR.17, A/C.6/57/SR.25, A/C.6/57/SR.26 and A/C.6/57/SR.28

Report of the Sixth Committee: A/57/569

Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Decision: 57/512

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

Discussion in the Working Group (see A/C.6/58/L.9)

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 existing international instruments to be taken into consideration and a list of issues to be addressed in the convention. The Assembly also recommended that the work continue during its fifty-seventh session, within the framework of a working group of the Sixth Committee.

Subsequently, in its decision 57/512 of 19 November 2002, the General Assembly decided that a working group of the Sixth Committee should be convened during the fifty-eighth session of the Assembly from 29 September to 3 October 2003 in order to continue the work undertaken during the fifty-seventh session.

Accordingly, the Sixth Committee, at its 1st (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting of the fifty-eighth session, on 29 September 2003, established such a Working Group open to all States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Committee also elected Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo (Mexico) as the Chairman of the Working Group.

The Working Group held 5 meetings, from 29 September to 3 October 2003.

The Working Group had before it its report on its previous session (A/C.6/57/L.4), the report of the Sixth Committee during the fifty-seventh session (A/57/569), the revised version of the information document prepared by the Secretariat containing, inter alia, a list of relevant international instruments on human cloning (A/AC.263/2002/INF/1/Rev.1), a draft international convention for the prohibition of all forms of human cloning and a brief explanatory commentary thereon submitted by Costa Rica (see A/58/73) and a paper submitted by the Holy See (A/C.6/58/WG.1/CRP.1).

The Working Group considered and adopted its report at its 5th meeting, on 3 October.

The Working Group held a general exchange of views at its 1st, 2nd and 3rd meetings, on 29 and 30 September and 2 October. An informal summary of the general discussion in the Working Group, prepared by the Chairman, is included in annex II to the present report. The summary is intended for reference purposes only, and not as an official record of the discussions.

The Working Group also decided to hear a statement by the representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) at its 1st meeting, on 29 September.

Discussions were subsequently held both in the Working Group and in informal consultations.

At its 5th meeting, on 3 October, the Working Group decided to refer the present 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.

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

Many speakers reiterated their support for the continued consideration of the topic. However, it was noted with concern that, despite two years of discussing the topic in the General Assembly, limited progress had been made. Many speakers stressed the importance of reaching consensus on how to move forward on the issue. States were also called upon to make all efforts to reach such consensus on a negotiation mandate, leading to the commencement of the negotiations soon thereafter, thereby sending an important signal to the international community. Strong support was also expressed for retaining the item in the agenda of the Assembly.

However, the general discussion continued to reveal a divergence of views among delegations. Some speakers spoke in favour of an international convention prohibiting all forms of human cloning, as proposed in draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.2. There was concern that developments in the medical sciences and genetic research, despite the possibility that they offered curing diseases, could be used to breach human rights and to violate the intrinsic dignity of all human beings. Indeed, it was stated that the dignity of human life did not tolerate the testing of human embryos, whatever the objective. In that regard, the view was expressed that an embryo was a human being in the earliest stages of formation and thus the killing of embryos for therapeutic purposes constituted a grave attack on the dignity of mankind. It was also pointed out that human cloning degraded the human being into a mere object of industrial production and manipulation.

The view was likewise expressed that cloning for “therapeutic” or “experimental” purposes was inherently risky, especially for donor women. Indeed, concern was expressed that the demand for human eggs would disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized women, resulting in a new form of discrimination. Similarly, the prospect of the successful development of therapeutic techniques was considered limited, and of dubious value, especially in the light of the serious ethical implications it raised, arising from the deliberate production and destruction of human embryos. Instead, a preference was expressed for adult stem cell research as a viable alternative with proved results. In terms of another suggestion, States were urged to allocate those funds that would otherwise be spent on human cloning techniques, towards other issues such as human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), infant mortality and morbidity, famine and desertification.

It was also stated that a partial ban, limited only to cloning for reproductive purposes, would be a false ban, since it would be confusing, ineffective and impossible to enforce. It would also lead to the unacceptable result of embryos' being exploited as commodities for commercial use. Instead, only a complete ban on all forms of human embryonic cloning would achieve the goal of prohibiting human reproductive cloning, and would be more durable. Similarly, an all-inclusive convention would properly allow States to formulate appropriate domestic legislation on human cloning.

Some other speakers were of a different view. It was recalled that the mandate of the Working Group was limited to establishing a negotiation mandate for the elaboration of an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings. The Working Group's attention was drawn to recent announcements of the birth of cloned humans, which, although not confirmed, had highlighted the urgent need for an international ban on reproductive cloning of human beings. It was stated that a lack of universally binding regulations dealing with any type of cloning of human beings constituted an open invitation for certain scientists to undertake the kind of research which was considered by all to be morally repugnant and contrary to human dignity. Indeed, some speakers, supporting a narrower ban on cloning for reproductive purposes, pointed out that their own domestic legislation already banned all forms of cloning. Hence, their support for a narrower approach was based solely on pragmatic reasons: it was viewed as the only possible basis on which to achieve consensus at the international level. Support was thus expressed for the revised Franco-German non-paper espousing a negotiating mandate for a comprehensive convention that would, on the one hand, adopt a strict ban on cloning of human beings for reproductive purposes, while, on the other, seek to regulate other forms of cloning by giving future States parties the option either to ban or impose a moratorium on such types of cloning or otherwise to regulate them by means of national legislation.

Several other speakers also described activities undertaken at the national level, inter alia, through legislation, to regulate human embryonic research for non-reproductive purposes. It was pointed out that the decision to allow such research had followed from an extensive national debate and internal consultation process, and that the legislation in question provided robust safeguards for the protection of the embryo, such as national monitoring mechanisms, while strictly prohibiting cloning for reproductive purposes. The view was expressed that therapeutic cloning research, as such, should be allowed to continue in countries that had reached a national consensus on the issue and had put into place a rigorous and effective system of regulation of embryo research. Indeed, several speakers also pointed to the potential that therapeutic cloning offered for curing disease and improving human life; and reference was made to recent statements, emanating from within the international scientific community, expressing support for a ban on reproductive cloning, while allowing therapeutic cloning to continue. It was observed that, given the complexity of the issue, an approach that respected the diversity of views and beliefs among States offered the greater chance of success. Such an approach would also enjoy the benefit of taking into account the views of those States whose national laws banned cloning only for reproductive purposes, but allowed research, including on human embryos, for non-reproductive purposes, albeit strictly regulated.

Other suggestions included agreeing on a general mandate for negotiation, so as to commence the work, albeit without stipulating at this stage the scope of the future convention; and calling for a moratorium on such activities, although it was cautioned that the General Assembly did not have the authority to impose a binding moratorium on States. It was also suggested that the Working Group consider the economic, sustainable development and human rights implications of the subject, in particular with regard to gender, children and indigenous peoples.

Discussion in the Plenary of the Sixth Committee

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 11th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 12th (E, F, S, R, C, A), 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 20, 21 and 31 October and 6 November 2003, respectively. The Chairman of the Sixth Committee made reference to the report of the Working Group on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings (A/C.6/58/L.9) at the 10th meeting. Statements were made by the representatives of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belgium, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Fiji, Gambia, Germany (also on behalf of France), Greece, Grenada, Honduras, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. The observer representative of the Holy See also made a statement.

Several speakers reaffirmed that they could not support only a “partial ban”, namely a ban limited to human cloning for reproductive purposes, and elaborated on the political, ethical, scientific and practical reasons why cloning of human embryos for “experimental”or “therapeutic” purposes could not be accepted, including: the cloning of human embryos would institutionalize the deliberate destruction of human life in the name of science; a ban on cloning for reproductive purposes would be ineffective if human cloning for research purposes were not likewise prohibited, and, hence, a complete ban would be the only real deterrent; and other avenues of research, such as research into adult stem cells, provided a viable alternative. Indeed, several speakers did not accept the distinction between “reproductive” and “therapeutic” cloning, maintaining that they were one and the same process. It was further emphasized that, when dealing with the sanctity and dignity of life, the means could never justify the ends. The concern was also expressed that research cloning could lead to the exploitation of women from developing countries who would be targeted as suppliers of embryos. Accordingly, support was expressed for the draft resolution in document A/C.6/58/L.2 proposing the negotiation of a treaty that would ban all forms of human cloning.

Some speakers, which preferred a total ban, called on the Committee to proceed with whatever approach that would most expeditiously result in an international convention, even if it meant proceeding with the proposal in A/C.6/58/L.8. Several speakers pointed to the existence of universal agreement that cloning of humans for reproductive purposes was unethical and unacceptable, and should therefore be prohibited. Hence, the view was expressed that it would be irresponsible not to proceed to at least ban cloning for reproductive purposes as soon as possible. At the same time, it was noted that similar agreement did not exist relating to cloning for other purposes. Others recommended that the General Assembly should at least call on all States that had not yet done so to adopt at the national level a prohibition against all forms of human cloning or to put into place a moratorium on research cloning.

Several speakers called on member Governments to strive to reach a consensus solution based on respect for cultural differences. It was proposed that it be left to national laws to strictly regulate cloning for non-reproductive purposes. Support was thus expressed for the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/58/L.8, which proposed the negotiation of a treaty which would allow States to either prohibit, place a moratorium on, or strictly regulate such types of cloning.

Some speakers outlined the potential benefits of stem cell research, including the development of new treatment of diseases, which could save lives, and noted the wide range of national scientific academies that had spoken out in favour of research involving other forms of human embryonic cloning.

Many speakers outlined activities being undertaken at the national level to prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes and either to ban or regulate cloning for other purposes.

While many speakers remarked on the necessity to find a solution based on consensus, which has been the tradition of the Sixth Committee, several speakers noted their willingness to submit the issue to a vote. Others cautioned that the issue was to complex to be reduced to a simple yes, no or abstention position. Other suggestions included reconvening the Ad Hoc Committee to continue the search for consensus, or appointing a coordinator to continue the search for consensus. Some speakers opposed referring the topic to UNESCO and stated that the General Assembly was the most appropriate forum for its consideration. Opposition was also expressed to postponing the consideration of the item to the 59th session in 2004.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 20 October, the representative of Costa Rica, on behalf of the group of sponsors, introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.2 (E, F, S, R, C, A). It was announced that Albania, Angola, Burundi, Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Turkmenistan and Tuvalu had joined as sponsors of the draft resolution. It was subsequently annouced, at the 23rd meeting held on 6 November, that the Central African Republic, Chad, Guinea, Guyana, Ireland, Malawi, Nauru, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe and the Solomon Islands had also joined as sponsors of draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.2.

At the 10th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 20 October, the representative of Belgium, on behalf of the group of sponsors, introduced draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.8 (E, F, S, R, C, A).It was announced that Cuba, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Slovenia and Turkey had joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

At the 19th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 31 October, the representative of Iran (Islamic Rep. of), on behalf of the States members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, announced that it intended to request, under rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, that the debate be adjourned on the item until the 60th session of the General Assembly.

At the 23rd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, held on 6 November, the representative of Iran (Islamic Rep. of) (on behalf of the member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference) moved, under rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, to adjourn the debate on the agenda item until the 60th session of the General Assembly. Statements were made by the representatives of Belgium (on behalf of the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.6/58/L.8) and India in favour of the motion, and Uganda and Spain spoke against.

The Committee adopted the motion by a recorded vote of 80 to 79, with 15 abstentions, as follows (see webcast):

In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Dar-Salam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Viet Nam, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (the Federated States of), Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela and Zambia.

Abstentions: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Jamaica, Peru, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine and Uruguay.

The Chairman announced that it was his understanding that it necessarily followed that the Sixth Committee, in effect, was recommending to the General Assembly that it include the item in its agenda for the sixtieth session.

The representatives of Germany (also on behalf of France), Canada, Mexico, Romania and Nigeria made statements in explanation of position after the vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/520) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

Background (Source: A/58/100)

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 until its fifty-sixth session (decision 55/429).

At its fifty-sixth and fifty-seventh sessions, the General Assembly similarly decided to defer further consideration of and a decision on the request until its fifty-seventh and fifty-eighth sessions, respectively (decisions 56/423 and 57/513).

Background documentation:

Summary records: A/C.6/57/SR.3, A/C.6/57/SR.25 and A/C.6/57/SR.26

Report of the Sixth Committee: A/57/570

Plenary meeting: A/57/PV.52

Decision: 57/513

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 6 and 9 October 2003, respectively. Statements were made by Sweden and Nigeria.

Support was expressed for granting observer status to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representative of Sweden introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/58/L.6 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and announced that Botswana, Guatemala, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland and Uruguay had joined as sponsors. At the 4th meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. The representative of Sierra Leone made a statement in explanation of a position before taking action on the draft resolution.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/522) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

Observer status for the Eurasian Economic Community in the General Assembly

Background

This item was included on the agenda at the request of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation and Tajikistan.

Background documentation:

Letter dated 11 June 2003 from the Representatives of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation and Tajikistan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the General Assembly (A/58/143) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) and 4th meetings, held on 6 and 9 October 2003, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

While support was expressed for the granting of observer status to the Eurasian Economic Community in the General Assembly, other speakers called for more information regarding the nature and goals of the Community.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the representative of Kazakhstan introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/58/L.5 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and announced that Cambodia had joined as a sponsor. At the 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/523) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

Observer status for GUAAM in the General Assembly

Background

This item was included on the agenda at the request of Georgia.

Background documentation:

Letter dated 4 September 2003 from the Permanent Representative of Georgia to the United Nations addresses to the Secretary-General (A/58/231) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 2nd and 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 6 and 9 October 2003, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of Georgia and Nigeria.

Support was expressed for the granting of observer status to GUAAM in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A), the representative of Georgia introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/58/L.4 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and announced that Uganda and Uzbekistan had joined as sponsors. It was subsequently announced at the 4th meeting that Israel, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America had also joined as sponsors. At the 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/524) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

Observer status for the East African Community in the General Assembly

Background

This item was included on the agenda at the request of Kenya, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania.

Background documentation:

Letter dated 4 September 2003 from the representatives of Kenya, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (A/58/232) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

Work undertaken at the Fifty-eighth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 2nd and 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meetings, held on 6 and 9 October 2003, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Nigeria, Kenya, Cameroon and Sierra Leone.

Support was expressed for the granting of observer status to the East African Community in the General Assembly

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 2nd (E, F, S, R, C, A), the representative of Uganda introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/58/L.3 (E, F, S, R, C, A) and announced that Australia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Madagascar, Malawi, Portugal, Sudan, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Zimbabwe had joined as sponsors. It was subsequently announced at the 4th meeting that Cameroon, Djibouti, Lesotho, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Ukraine had also joined as sponsors. At the 4th (E, F, S, R, C, A) meeting, the Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote.

See: Report of the Sixth Committee (A/58/525) (E, F, S, R, C, A)

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

Copyright (c) 2003
United Nations