The Sixth Committee (Legal) continued its discussion of the first cluster of topics from the International Law Commission’s annual report today, as speakers highlighted the importance of clarity when codifying or developing rules on topics ranging from the contours of official immunity to cooperation amidst rising seas.
“As a country on the Pacific Ocean, whose communities, ecosystems, infrastructure and economic activities are closely linked to its coastlines, we know the challenges this phenomenon represents,” said the representative of Peru. He emphasized that the implications of rising sea levels “transcend the environmental dimension and touch upon key aspects of the international legal order”. Due to its cross-border, multidimensional character, sea level rise requires collective responses that are sustained and legally grounded, he said, adding that international cooperation is essential.
Similarly, the representative of Papua New Guinea observed that rising sea levels are “a twin disaster that seriously compounds an already-grave threat for our people”. Recalling the regional conference held by the Pacific Islands Forum on the protection of persons affected by this phenomenon, he stressed that it is, fundamentally, “a human-rights issue”. On that, he pointed to possible gaps in the regional human rights context — including the absence of comprehensive regional human rights architecture or institutional mechanisms — which could affect the consistent application of human rights obligations in the region.
For her part, the representative of Belize recalled that the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has called for a framework that defines the responsibilities of affected and receiving States, creates pathways for cross-border movement and guarantees self-determination. She also observed that, while many sources affirm the duty to cooperate, none specify how this should be carried out in the context of sea level rise. “That question should not be left to inference,” she stressed, reiterating that the obligations of cooperation, prevention and reparation could merit the Commission’s future attention.
Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction
“Efforts must be redoubled in order to draw inspiration from the main principal legal systems, reflective of our contemporary world — including African customary law,” stressed Uganda’s representative. He underscored that rules governing immunity — ratione personae and ratione materiae, two forms of immunity enjoyed by certain State officials — must protect against politically motivated prosecutions. He said that these rules must both enable State officials to perform their functions without undue interference from foreign judiciaries and ensure accountability when exceptions to immunity are recognized by international law.
“We must distinguish between the principle of accountability and the legal status of the proposed exceptions to immunity,” added the representative of Zimbabwe, noting that support for accountability does not render every proposed exception part of customary international law. Pointing to the Commission’s acknowledgment that the draft articles contain both the codification and progressive development of international law, he urged: “This distinction should be made clear.” States should not be left to infer the legal status of a provision when the Commission itself has acknowledged that the draft articles serve more than one purpose.
Along those lines, the representative of Kyrgyzstan called for careful and balanced consideration of this “complex” subject. Clarity regarding the applicable rules contributes to legal certainty and predictability in relations between States, and she underscored the need for rigorous legal analysis to guide further development of this topic. She also expressed support for the continuation of intergovernmental discussions and emphasized the need to achieve a broad consensus.
For her part, the representative of the United Arab Emirates expressed regret that the draft articles limit the scope of immunity ratione personae to Heads of State and Government and Foreign Ministers. She noted that comments by States and Commission members “evidence disagreement with this overly restrictive approach”. Further observing that the existence of exceptions to immunity ratione materiae is not supported by State practice sufficient to establish a rule of customary international law, she emphasized that the views of States remain too divided for these exceptions to be proposed as progressive development.
General Principles of Law
“General principles of law make an essential contribution to the coherence of the international legal system,” said Bulgaria’s representative. Their significance is reflected in both State practice and the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals, he added. Fundamental legal principles — such as pacta sunt servanda (Latin for “agreements must be kept”), good faith, respect for human dignity and the obligation to make reparations for internationally wrongful acts — must remain central to international relations, he stressed. “Treaties must be concluded and performed in good faith,” he added.
For his part, the representative of the Federated States of Micronesia expressed support for the Commission’s use of the term “community of nations” to describe the body that must recognize a general principle for it to exist. He said that this phrase is “clearer and more inclusive” than “international community”. However, he emphasized that the reference to “various legal systems of the world” should not imply a hierarchy between national legal systems, nor should the term “regions” be bound by the concept of those five commonly recognized by the UN. It should, instead, be more “fluid and inclusive”, he urged.
“We particularly appreciate the fact that the draft reaffirms that general principles of law must be recognized by the international community,” said Argentina’s representative. He also voiced agreement with the Commission’s replacement of the expression “civilized nations” with a formulation that reflects that “all nations participate equally in the formation of these principles”. In relation to the categories of general principles of law — those that derive from national legal systems and those that may be formed inside the international legal system — he urged States to “proceed with caution” regarding the latter.
As the meeting ended, the observer for the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) stressed that, “at a time when respect for international law is under pressure, the Commission’s work remains essential”. The progressive development and codification of international law provides a foundation for cooperation and accountability, and effective implementation gives these practical meaning. Expressing support for the Commission’s commitment to “grounding its work in practical realities and responding to the needs expressed by States”, she stressed that is strongest when it reflects “the full range of legal traditions”.
On that, she underlined the importance of customary and informal justice systems, observing: “For the majority of people around the world, they are the first point of recourse for addressing a dispute or legal challenge.”