Observer Status for Union for Mediterranean Approved Without Vote

Prior to approving without a vote the request for Observer status in the General Assembly for the Union for the Mediterranean, the Sixth Committee (Legal) today heard oral reports of its three working groups, noting once again that delegations had been unable to conclude a draft comprehensive convention on measures to eliminate international terrorism, a situation the Chair lamented. 

Sri Lanka’s representative, presenting his report as Chair of the Working Group on Measures to eliminate international terrorism, said that, in light of the increase of terrorist attacks worldwide, the Group’s members remained committed to negotiations on a draft convention.  However, they also remained unable to agree on the many outstanding issues on the matter, despite 10 years having passed since the 2005 World Summit when world leaders called for the need to conclude a convention during the General Assembly’s sixtieth session.

Among the outstanding issues, he said, were the legal definition of terrorism and the scope of the convention.  There was also continued divergence on the role of consensus in concluding a convention, treatment of the 2007 text that had been proposed by the Bureau, as well as the convening of a high-level conference on the matter.  Given the current impasse, he called for a new framework that would allow continuous consultations, suggesting one used during negotiations of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in order to overcome similar hurdles.

The Committee Chair, following that oral report, expressed deep disappointment at the failure to conclude, against the background of the “growing carnage” resulting from terrorist activities, a draft comprehensive convention on measures to eliminate international terrorism.  He also said that he had thought that the recent terrorist act in Lebanon might have jolted delegations into finding a way to overcome their differences.  Recalling that work on a convention had actually begun in 2001, he lamented that the response to the matter had been weak, and he called on the Committee to take urgent action.

South Africa’s representative, during his oral report as Chair of the Working Group on Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission, also noted divergent views on whether negotiations on a convention could commence.  While some delegations had expressed that the convention should also cover military personnel engaged in peacekeeping operations, others had deemed engagement in substantive discussions should be the focus, rather than a convention.

He also noted that Working Group members had pointed to the need for more information from the Secretariat and Member States to more fully assess the impediments to seeking criminal accountability in appropriate situations.  To improve measures of accountability in particular, delegations had suggested, among others, proposals relating to follow-up by the Secretariat with Member States once referrals had been made and the need to highlight financial crimes.

Costa Rica’s representative, Chair of the Working Group on the Scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, during her oral report, said the Group had discussed application, definition, and scope of the topic as set out in its Informal Working Paper to which several additions had been made reflecting discussions.  Among them was the addition of a new role and purpose of universal jurisdiction:  “To address the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.”  

She said the Informal Working Paper had been revised further to reflect a new column indicating points for further discussion for each of the sections.  As greatest divergence appeared to be on application of the principle, first presented were points related to that.  Despite the Group’s progress over five years, she noted that lack of clarity as to its potential outcome continued to impede its focus.  While the topic had become “an issue” for all delegations, she expressed hope that they could build upon the work that had been accomplished.

The Committee also heard today an introduction of the draft resolution on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction.  It then approved, without a vote, Observer status in the General Assembly for the Union for the Mediterranean, which aimed at regional integration and cohesion among Euro-Mediterranean countries.

Also speaking today were representatives of Jordan and Kenya.

The Sixth Committee will reconvene on Monday, 16 November at 10 a.m. to consider the report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country and revitalization of the General Assembly.

Background

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met today to hear the oral reports of its working groups.  It also heard an introduction of the draft resolution on “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction” (document A/C.6/70/L.12) and took action on the draft resolution on “Observer status for the Union for the Mediterranean in the General Assembly” (document A/C.6/70/L.5).

Reports of Working Groups

THEMBILE JOYINI (South Africa), Chair, Working Group on criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission, said that the Group had considered the report of the Group of Legal Experts on ensuring the accountability of United Nations staff and experts on mission with respect to criminal acts committed in peacekeeping operations; the reports of the Ad Hoc Committee on criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission; the note by the Secretariat; and the reports of the Secretary-General on the matter.

In addition, he said, the Group had had before it the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) on the Evaluation of the Enforcement and Remedial Assistance Efforts for Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by the United Nations and Related Personnel in Peacekeeping Operations; the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations on uniting our strengths for peace; and the report of the Secretary-General on the future of United Nations peace operations:  implementation of the recommendations of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations.  An informal compilation by the Secretariat of information submitted by Member States on their implementation of paragraph 3 common to all resolutions on criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission had also been considered.

Proceedings had been conducted as informal consultations, he said.  Background briefings on the topic had been provided by the Chair as well as by the General Legal Division (OLA/GLD), the Office of the Legal Counsel (OLA/OLC) of the Office of Legal Affairs, the Conduct and Discipline Unit (CDU) of the Department of Field Support and the OIOS.  In keeping with General Assembly resolutions 62/63 and 63/119 as read with resolution 69/114, the Working Group’s discussions had focused first on aspects of the report of the Group of Legal Experts concerning the elaboration of a convention.  The Working Group then discussed additional measures that might be taken for possible inclusion in this year’s resolution to enhance the mechanisms of accountability contained in those resolutions and subsequently reiterated in resolutions 67/88, 68/105 and 69/114.

Summarizing discussions in the Working Group, he said that views had diverged on whether negotiations on a convention could commence, reflecting delegations’ positions in the plenary debate of the Committee on 16 October 2015.  Several held that rather than taking a “binary” focus on whether or not to have a convention, it was important to engage in substantive discussions to catalyse further progress on the issue.  The delegations holding that view advocated for a Working Group during the seventy-first session and for the possibility of intersessional work.

He noted that some were of the view that the draft convention should also cover military personnel engaged in peacekeeping operations.  Delegations had also pointed to the need for more information from the Secretariat and Member States to more fully assess the scope and nature of obstacles to seeking criminal accountability in appropriate situations.  On further practical aspects to enhance measures of accountability, the need for a comprehensive picture of empirical data on the subject was highlighted, thus permitting a more informed discussion of the issues raised in the report of the Group of Legal Experts.

He said that measures to that end suggested by delegations included: more detailed and expansive requests for information from the Secretariat; proposals relating to follow-up by the Secretariat with Member States once referrals had been made to them; citations to a number of other United Nations reports within the resolution; the need to highlight financial crimes; and the potential of convening the Working Group in the following session.

During the question and answer session with representatives of the Secretariat entities, some speakers noted that it was difficult to appreciate the fuller picture, including the range and kinds of allegations reported, given the number of differing reports containing information and figures.  Questions had also focused on whether light could be shed on impediments to potential prosecutions within the national jurisdictions of Member States to whom referrals had been made, the nature of responses received and whether there had been any follow-up.  Information was also sought on measures taken by the Secretariat to develop awareness among local populations on available mechanisms to report criminal conduct, as well as measures to safeguard against retaliation.  It was agreed that the interactive dialogue should be repeated, as appropriate, at future sessions.

AMRITH ROHAN PERERA (Sri Lanka), Chair of the Working Group on Measures to eliminate international terrorism, said that the Group had had before it the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on its sixteenth session, which contained the preamble and articles 1, 2 and 4 to 27 of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, prepared by the Bureau.  The Group also had before it letters from the Permanent Representative of Egypt addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 1 September 2005, and to the Chair of the Sixth Committee.  Outstanding issues relating to the draft convention were discussed and the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations was considered.

Summarizing the Group’s exchange of views on those matters, he said that delegations had stressed the importance of concluding the draft convention, with several referring to current events and the increase in terrorist acts worldwide.  The Group’s members generally remained committed to negotiations, and several had noted that the time had come to agree on compromise solutions on the text, particularly as ten years had passed since the World Summit in 2005 when heads of State and Government had called to conclude a convention by the sixtieth session.

He noted that some had affirmed that the outstanding issues were mostly political, rather than legal, and that they could only be resolved through political will.  Furthermore, while some delegations had underlined the importance of consensus in concluding a convention, others pointed out that consensus could not be a goal in and of itself if it prevented the discussion from moving forward.

Delegations revisited the issues still outstanding on the draft convention, including the legal definition of terrorism, the scope of the convention and the need to distinguish acts of terrorism and the legitimate struggle of peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination in the exercise of their right to self-determination, he continued.  Reiterating their positions, some delegations had expressed support for the proposal of the Bureau as originally presented in 2007, while others saw it as the basis for negotiations, but not as a “take it or leave it” proposal. 

Some delegations, he continued, were willing to accept the 2007 text without modification, as a compromise, on the condition that doing so would result in the successful conclusion of negotiations.  However, consensus should not come at the expense of having different interpretations on key terms.  The view was expressed that the way to proceed was for delegations to come to a common understanding on the meaning of terms used in draft article 3, although some said that was unrealistic.  It was not for legislators to provide detailed interpretations of specific terms used in a convention, which was the task of the judiciary based on the circumstances at hand.

He also noted that in regards to the convening of a high-level conference on the matter, the sponsor delegation, Egypt had said that such a conference could mobilize the political will necessary to reach agreement on the draft comprehensive convention.  If the impasse remained after such a conference, delegations could acknowledge that agreement on the draft convention was not possible and consider suspending further deliberations.  According to the sponsor delegation, such a conference could also provide an opportunity to strengthen the coordination at the international level of many actions adopted by States in addressing the fight against terrorism.

During the Working Group’s debate, delegations had reiterated their positions, with several supporting the proposal, underlining the need for a forum that could bridge the gap between divergent views on the outstanding issues on the draft convention, he said.  However, other delegations held that the time was not ripe for such a conference and that the outstanding differences on the draft convention should be addressed in the Sixth Committee and not by heads of States or Governments.  Those delegations held that the conference should serve as a final adopting moment once agreement had been reached on the draft convention.

On the way forward, he noted that efforts, past and present, to engage delegations in constructive dialogue on the outstanding issues had not generated the kind of discussions necessary to overcome the current impasse.  Thus, it was time to proceed in a different framework that would allow for continuous consultations.  To that end, he had suggested that the Working Group follow the precedent that had been used during negotiations of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in order to overcome similar hurdles.  He had presented a proposal, on behalf of the Friends of the Chair of the Working Group, to adopt a recommendation.  However it had not been possible to find agreement on a recommendation.  Although progress remained elusive, he encouraged delegations to continue to explore possible ways to overcome differences.

GEORGINA GUILLÉN-GRILLO (Costa Rica), Chair, Working Group on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, said the Group had had before it the reports of the Secretary-General on the topic from 2010 to 2015 and the Chair’s oral reports from 2012 to 2014, as well as the Informal Paper of the Working Group, also referred to as the “Road map”, which contained the methodology and issues for discussions.  It had also considered an informal compilation containing “Excerpts from decisions of international tribunals”, which could be relevant to the Group’s work.  The Group had held three meetings in October this year in the framework of informal consultations.

She said that after the Chair’s overview of past proceedings, the Group had discussed for the third consecutive session each section of the Informal Working Paper and the concepts set out within each section, considering first the section on application, then the section on the definition of the concept, and lastly the section on scope.  A number of delegations had stressed the usefulness of sharing national practices which could not only provide insight into the topic, but demonstrate potential obstacles as well, especially in the context of application of universal jurisdiction.  The Working Group had also discussed the basis of the principle within different sources of international law.

A number of additions had been made to the Informal Working Paper to reflect discussions during the Working Group’s first two meetings, she said.  Among them was the inclusion of “International comity” to subsection 3(c) on procedural aspects under the section on application, as well as the addition of “hybrid criminal tribunals” within subsection 1(c) relating to “Distinction from other related concepts” under the section on the definition of the concept.  A new element to subsection 1(a), relating to “the role and purpose of universal jurisdiction”, was also added:  “To address the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.” 

At the conclusion of the Group’s second meeting, she recalled proposing that a further set of points could inspire further discussion.  Given that the greatest amount of divergence appeared to revolve around section 3 on application, the first presentation of those points — a third column to be added to the Informal Working Paper — would focus only on application.  The third column “Points for further discussion” flowed directly from the Road map and the elements set out in column 2 of the Informal Working Paper. 

Those proposed points, she continued, took into account various materials, including General Assembly resolutions on the topic.  They did not reflect consensus among delegations.  Concerns and questions raised by delegations over aspects of the third column had been reflected in the revised version of the Informal Working Paper.  It would be essential for similar points to be presented for the sections on definition and scope in due course.

She said progress undoubtedly had been made through the Group’s work over five years.  The elaboration of a number of useful documents had led to their further refinement.  While several delegations had during the plenary debate raised the possibility of requesting the International Law Commission to undertake a study of certain aspects of the topic, others had found the proposal premature at the current stage.

She also recalled that despite the value in substantive discussions as expressed by some delegations, the lack of clarity as to the Group’s potential outcome continued to hinder focus.  The topic, once introduced to the agenda of the Sixth Committee, had become “an issue” for all delegations.  Calling to mind the role of the Secretary-General’s report and the plenary debate in permitting the sharing of viewpoints and State laws and practice, she expressed hope that delegations could build upon the work accomplished to date.

Draft Resolutions

The representative of Kenya introduced the draft resolution on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Jordan’s representative noted additional sponsors to the draft resolution on the Observer status for the Union for the Mediterranean in the General Assembly (document A/C.6/70/L.5).  The text was then approved without a vote.