VZCZCXYZ0073
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1072/01 3321305
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281305Z NOV 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3191

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001072 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNGA UNGA
SUBJECT: SIXTH COMMITTEE DEBATE ON THE REPORT OF THE 
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY:  The Sixth Committee held its debate on the 
report of the fifty-ninth session of the International Law 
Commission (ILC) from October 29 through November 6.  ILC 
Chairman Ian Brownlie (UK) attended sessions from October 29 
through November 2 to present the ILC report to the Sixth 
Committee and to participate in the annual interactive 
dialogue between Committee delegates and ILC members.  Legal 
Advisers from many capitals also participated in the Sixth 
Committee's ILC debate, and the annual informal meeting of 
Legal Advisers.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  During the Sixth Committee's debate, 59 delegations took 
the floor to comment on specific chapters of the ILC's report 
on its fifty-ninth session (UN document A/62/10): Finland (on 
behalf of Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden); Benin (on 
behalf of the Africa Group); Denmark (on behalf of Iceland, 
Finland, Norway, and Sweden); Sweden (on behalf of Denmark, 
Iceland, Finland, and Norway); Algeria; Argentina; Australia; 
Austria; Belarus; Belgium; Brazil; Bulgaria; Canada; Chile; 
China; Colombia; Cuba; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Egypt; El 
Salvador; France; Germany; Greece; Guatemala; Hungary; India; 
Indonesia; Iran; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Kenya; 
Malaysia; Mexico; Netherlands; New Zealand; Nigeria; 
Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Republic of Korea; Romania; 
Sierra Leone; Slovakia; Slovenia; South Africa; Sri Lanka; 
Switzerland; Syria; Thailand; the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo; the Russian Federation; Turkey; United Kingdom; United 
States; Uruguay; and Venezuela. 
 
¶3.  Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger delivered the 
U.S. statement on chapters 1 - 3 (introduction and other 
decisions), chapter 6 (expulsion of aliens), chapter 7 
(effects of armed conflict on treaties), and chapter 8 
(responsibility of international organizations) of the ILC's 
report.  The U.S. also spoke on chapter 4 (reservations to 
treaties), chapter 5 (shared natural resources), and chapter 
9 (obligation to extradite or prosecute). 
 
¶4.  ILC Chairman Ian Brownlie (UK) began his introduction of 
the report by underscoring the crucial role of governments' 
feedback on the ILC's work.  The input governments provided, 
either directly or through the Sixth Committee, was central 
to the effective codification and development of 
international law and was also a crucial aspect of the 
Commission's working methods, Brownlie emphasized.  He added 
that the views of governments were particularly important for 
the Commission when considering topics on which little State 
practice exists.  During the interactive dialogue with the 
Sixth Committee, the special rapporteurs and Chairman 
Brownlie reiterated the Commission's desire to receive more 
frequent, detailed, and considered reactions from governments 
on the ILC's work. 
 
¶5.  Turning to administrative issues, Brownlie urged 
delegations to reinstate honoraria for Special Rapporteurs, 
noting the increasing complexity of topics under 
consideration by the Commission.  Brownlie also recommended 
establishing a trust fund to address the ILC Yearbook's 
backlog and publish the Yearbook and other ILC documents in 
all UN languages.  In his concluding remarks, Brownlie said 
he looked forward to continuing his dialogue with delegations 
during the ILC 60th anniversary meeting in Geneva from May 19 
- 20 and encouraged legal advisers to attend. 
 
¶6.  Reservations to Treaties (Chapter 4):  The ILC considered 
the 11th and 12th reports of the Special Rapporteur, and 
referred 35 draft guidelines to the Drafting Committee.  The 
ILC also adopted nine draft articles on the determination of 
the object and purpose of a treaty and the incompatibility of 
a reservation with the object and purpose of the treaty. 
Most delegations welcomed the draft guidelines; however, many 
delegations, including Italy, Belgium, Greece, Egypt, and 
Canada, said the guidelines should not go beyond the Vienna 
Convention on the Law of Treaties.  Some delegations also 
argued there was no need for a separate regime for 
reservations to certain categories of treaties, such as human 
rights treaties. 
 
¶7.  Shared Natural Resources (Chapter 5):  The ILC examined 
the fourth report of the special rapporteur.  States with 
significant aquifer resources, such as Argentina and 
Guatemala, generally welcomed the draft articles.  Most 
delegations approved of the ILC's recommendation to consider 
the articles on transboundary aquifers separately from oil 
and natural gas.  The United Kingdom saw no role for the ILC 
in considering oil and natural gas, since issues concerning 
both resources were adequately handled through bilateral 
arrangements.  As to the final form of the draft articles on 
transboundary aquifers, Russia, Portugal and Argentina 
supported the negotiation of a binding convention.  Most 
delegations, however, favored non-binding measures.  China, 
for instance, suggested a non-binding declaration, while 
Turkey, Uruguay, Guatemala, New Zealand, and Malaysia favored 
 
 
non-binding guidelines or principles. 
 
¶8.  Expulsion of Aliens (Chapter 6):  The ILC considered the 
second and third reports of the special rapporteur dealing 
with the scope, definitions and general provisions related to 
the expulsion of aliens.  In general, delegations expressed 
the need to strike a balance between a State's sovereign 
right to expel those illegally on its territory and the need 
to uphold international and human rights law.  With regard to 
territory, China said the scope of the articles should 
include the expulsion of aliens inside immigration zones, and 
not just the territory of a State.  On refugees, Egypt, South 
Africa, and China said the draft articles should not go 
beyond the protections contained in the 1951 Convention on 
the Status of Refugees and its Protocols.  Greece and Romania 
saw no need to include terrorism as a separate ground for 
expulsion because acts of terrorism, they argued, were 
covered under national security grounds on which States can 
expel aliens.  On the other hand, Turkey favored a reference 
to terrorism, arguing that reliance on the term "national 
security" could create a loophole allowing some to abuse 
refugee status in States that do not view certain terrorist 
acts as a threat to national security.  As to general 
definitions, most delegations preferred the use of the term 
"national" rather than "ressortissant" when describing the 
concept of "alien". 
 
¶9.  Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties (Chapter 7):  The 
ILC established a working group based on the third report of 
the Special Rapporteur and referred nine draft articles to 
the Drafting Committee.  In general, delegations discussed 
concerns about the compatibility of the draft articles with 
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the 
inclusion of internal conflicts and the responsibility of 
international organizations in the scope of the draft 
articles.  Finland and Poland suggested using the terms 
"hostilities" and "outbreak of hostilities" rather than 
"armed conflict", which would better reflect the language 
used in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 
Finland, Bulgaria, and France commended the inclusion of 
internal conflicts in the scope of the draft articles. 
Russia, however, opposed referring to internal conflicts, 
arguing that such conflicts did not substantially alter 
relations between States.  Iran, China and Algeria shared 
Russia's view.  As to the inclusion of international 
organizations, the United Kingdom argued that including 
treaties entered into by international organizations did not 
adequately account for the differences between international 
organizations and States.  Canada, Finland, Sri Lanka, India 
and Greece also argued against including international 
organizations in the scope of the draft articles. 
 
¶10.  Responsibility of International Organizations (Chapter 
8):  The ILC considered the fifth report of the Special 
Rapporteur.  Some delegations, including Denmark, Bulgaria, 
Korea and the Netherlands, agreed with the ILC's approach of 
using the draft articles on State Responsibility as the basis 
for the articles on the Responsibility of International 
Organizations.  Russia argued that the rules governing the 
responsibility of international organizations were almost 
identical to those of States, citing treaties on the Use of 
Outer Space as an example.  Other delegations, such as 
Portugal, said that the draft articles for international 
organizations should not duplicate the articles on State 
responsibility, since international organizations were 
fundamentally different than States. 
 
¶11.  Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (Chapter 9):  Some 
delegations were unsure about whether an obligation to 
extradite or prosecute (aut detere aut judicare) actually 
existed in customary international law.  Australia and other 
delegations noted that the obligation to extradite or 
prosecute was governed by international treaties.  Germany 
doubted whether there was enough agreement among States and 
sufficient State practice to assume that an obligation 
existed beyond that covered by treaties.  Many delegations 
also expressed reservations about the ILC's "triple 
alternative", which suggests that States could meet their 
obligation to extradite or prosecute by surrendering a 
criminal to an international criminal tribunal.  Russia and 
New Zealand said the "triple alternative" should not be 
included in the scope of the ILC's guidelines. 
 
¶12.  Programme and Working Methods (Chapter 10):  The ILC 
decided to include "Protection of Persons in Case of 
Disasters" and "Immunity of State Officials from Foreign 
Criminal Jurisdiction" as new topics in its current work 
program and consider the long-term inclusion of the topic 
"Most-Favored-Nation clause."  Many developing states 
welcomed the inclusion of Protection of Persons in Disasters 
and the Most-Favored-Nation clause as topics that would 
address human suffering and developing states' economic 
concerns.  Turning to administrative issues, Poland called 
 
 
for the restoration of honoraria for Special Rapporteurs and 
a repeal of the limitation on the length of ILC 
documentation.  Kenya urged the ILC to publish and circulate 
its reports in a timely manner to allow States more time to 
prepare comments. 
Khalilzad