UNITED NATIONS, New York Oct 15 – As the Sixth Committee (Legal) began its consideration of crimes against humanity today, delegates were divided on the timing and propriety of establishing an international convention based on the related International Law Commission’s draft articles — with some championing fighting impunity with international instruments, while others stressed States’ right to exercise national jurisdiction in such cases.
The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as an observer, pointed out that genocide and war crimes are governed by international conventions. However, crimes against humanity are not and may be more widespread than genocide and war crimes as they can occur in situations not involving armed conflict. Voicing support for a new convention, she called for the establishment of an ad hoc committee to enable an open and frank preparatory debate on the matter.
Cuba’s delegate said that the Sixth Committee should continue to consider the International Law Commission’s draft articles on the basis of State commentaries. Noting that a cardinal principle of international law is that States have the sovereign right to exercise national jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed in their territory or by their nationals, he emphasized that these States are in the best position to effectively prosecute the perpetrators of such offences.
Egypt’s delegate noted it is premature for the Sixth Committee to work towards a convention based on the draft articles or call for a conference for its adoption. The draft articles contain references to the Rome Statute — which does not enjoy universal membership — as well as provisions relating to national jurisdiction that do not enjoy international consensus. Member States must be given time to consider the draft articles’ alignment with national legislation.
On this point, the representative of Paraguay said that crimes against humanity are prohibited under his country’s Constitution, including torture, forced disappearance and homicide on political grounds. Still, the fight against such crimes should not be limited to prosecuting and punishing their perpetrators, but should focus on ensuring that these crimes do not reoccur. A convention based on the draft articles would strengthen international law and might inspire States to act to end these crimes.
The representative of Singapore said that the draft articles could contribute to strengthening accountability by providing useful guidance to States on this topic. Nevertheless, they can be improved or clarified in several areas, including the resolution of potential conflicts of jurisdiction. Noting that other delegations’ statements and written submissions demonstrate remaining divergence in views, he welcomed continued discussion on these matters.
Recalling national experience, South Africa’s representative said that his country still suffers from the wounds of its past and knows first-hand that healing cannot take place without accountability. A convention offers the opportunity to ensure this, he said, adding his support for such an instrument based on the International Law Commission’s draft articles.
Mexico’s delegate, noting his disappointment at the lack of substantive discussion, said that the Sixth Committee’s adoption of a resolution on this matter last year should not be considered part of a sterile cycle of technical rollovers. He called for an inclusive negotiation process on the International Law Commission’s recommendations. It is necessary to create a critical road map for action, he stressed, adding: “We must not lose sight of the fact that there is a legal vacuum to fill.” A convention on crimes against humanity will fill that vacuum.
At the outset of the meeting, the Sixth Committee concluded its debate on criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission, as delegates emphasized the importance of safeguarding public trust in peacekeeping missions by holding those who violate that trust accountable. To this end, many speakers called on States to resolve jurisdictional gaps relating to these crimes. (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3637.)
The representative of Angola urged troop-contributing countries to take all necessary measures to ensure that internal disciplinary mechanisms are in place, harmonized with United Nations standards, to support better action by local authorities. Cases of sexual violence — such as those allegedly committed by humanitarian workers during the 2019 Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — must be investigated and their perpetrators punished. She also said that — in order to protect women and children in fragile situations — the number of Women’s Protection Advisers in peacekeeping operations should be increased.
Also speaking on criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission were representatives of Haiti, Jordan, Senegal, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, China and Peru.
Speaking on crimes against humanity were representatives of Sweden (also speaking for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway), Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Iran, Philippines, China, Colombia, Liechtenstein, Portugal, United States, Israel, Brazil, El Salvador, Slovakia, Viet Nam, Switzerland, Hungary, Germany, Guatemala, Pakistan, Czech Republic, India, Syria and Armenia.
The Sixth Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 15 October, to conclude its debate on crimes against humanity.
Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission
WISNIQUE PANIER (Haiti), observing that his country is among those that have received the greatest number of missions, said: “That is not a source of delight, but circumstances left us with no choice.” Voicing concern about the numerous allegations of fraud, sexual exploitation and corruption brought against United Nations officials, he noted that more than 250 of the 280 cases have remained without response from the countries of nationality of the concerned persons. While disciplinary measures were taken against officials of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) who were found to be involved in sexual exploitation, the countries of their nationality abandoned criminal prosecution. He also recalled that the cholera epidemic had been introduced into Haiti by “Blue Helmets” after the earthquake of 2010, adding that the United Nations took a lot of time to accept its legal responsibility for that.
ALAA NAYEF ZAID AL-EDWAN (Jordan), noting the crucial role of peacekeepers in maintaining peace and security, said that public trust in them is paramount to the work of the Organization. Their conduct must exemplify the values of the Charter of the United Nations, he said, also calling for tolerance and respect for the laws and religion of the host country. Expressing concern about lack of scrutiny by national authorities, he said that article 10 of his country’s penal code criminalizes offences committed by Jordanian nationals abroad. They do not enjoy immunity before Jordanian courts, he said, adding that his Government has imposed appropriate penalties on nationals found to have committed offences while posted in peacekeeping missions elsewhere. Calling on countries to resolve outstanding issues and jurisdictional gaps, he voiced support for a comprehensive international legal framework on this matter.
Mr. DIAKITE (Senegal), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that – like other troop‑contributing countries – Senegal has paid a heavy price in peacekeeping operations around the world. The Government has a zero‑tolerance policy for criminal acts attributable to United Nations officials and experts on mission and has adopted criminal legislation that facilitates investigation and prosecution for nationals committing grave crimes outside Senegal’s territory. On this, he emphasized the pre‑eminence of the State of nationality’s role – over that of the host State – while also stressing the importance of training before and during deployment. He also called on Member States to address jurisdictional gaps relating to these crimes in order to ensure accountability.
JAMES WARUI KIHWAGA (Kenya), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement and the African Group, acknowledged that the vast majority of United Nations officials and experts on mission uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct. Collective concern must continue to focus on preventing the few deplorable incidents of conduct that risk negating the credibility, trust and integrity of the Organization, he said. In dealing with cases of accountability, it is critical to acknowledge the equal responsibility shared by Member States, especially where acts are committed within the territory of jurisdiction or committed by a subject national. In that regard, Member States must consider adopting necessary measures to establish or strengthen cooperation and jurisdictional capacity over such matters, he noted.
Ms. JORGE (Angola) said cases of sexual violence, such as those allegedly committed by humanitarian workers from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) during the Ebola epidemic in 2019 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, must be investigated and their perpetrators must be exemplarily punished. Welcoming measures aimed at protecting victims, she said in order to protect women, girls and boys in extremely fragile situations, the number of Women’s Protection Advisers in peacekeeping operations should be increased. Those advisers would monitor, analyse and report on conflict‑related sexual violence, enhancing prevention, early warning and timely responses to conflict‑related sexual violence. Further, States that have not yet done so must establish jurisdiction over crimes committed during missions. She urged troop‑contributing States to take all necessary measures to ensure that internal disciplinary mechanisms are in place and are harmonized with United Nations standards in order to support better action by local authorities.
MIANGOLA RAJAONA (Madagascar), associating herself with the Non‑Aligned Movement and the African Group, expressed concern over the large number of allegations brought against United Nations officials and experts on mission and said that these crimes must be investigated and prosecuted when necessary. Madagascar is committed to a zero‑tolerance policy in this regard and condemns criminal acts committed by such individuals who must be held accountable for their actions. She stressed that working within the United Nations system is a noble duty and cannot be used as an excuse for illicit behaviour. The immunity and privileges enjoyed by officials and experts on mission must not hinder States’ ability to prosecute offenders, she added.
Ms. LBADAOUI (Morocco), associating herself with the Non‑Aligned Movement and the African Group, lauded the heroic sacrifices of the peacekeeping personnel. Stressing the importance of promoting a culture of accountability in missions, she said the immunity provided by international law is aimed at enabling United Nations staff to carry out their work, not at preventing justice. Any crime committed on a mission should be subjected to a rigorous inquiry and judicial prosecution before a competent court. Also highlighting the need for preventive action, she noted the importance of training adapted to local context. As a major troop contributor, Morocco provides predeployment training as well as targeted training in human rights, she said.
LIU YANG (China) said that a zero‑tolerance policy is essential to combat impunity. States of nationality should take the necessary legislative and judicial steps, he said, adding that the United Nations should strengthen its own measures to ensure accountability. Stressing the need for prevention, he said that States should integrate preventive and punitive measures to create a holistic system for strengthening awareness among their troops and officials. Also spotlighting the need for international synergy, he said that both States of nationality and host States should cooperate with each other to enable extradition and judicial assistance. Further, the United Nations can assist the process with information‑sharing and implementing coordinated and consistent policies.
ALESSANDRA FALCONI (Peru) pointed out that peacekeeping operations are a vital tool used by the United Nations, providing added value to the Organization by creating an enabling environment for peace and conflict resolution. Peru has provided a considerable number of troops to these operations, of which there have been approximately 70 since the Organization’s inception. Currently her country has deployed 232 troops and 320 officials across five peacekeeping missions. She condemned any conduct that undermines national or international law and “shakes ethical foundations” – particularly cases of sexual exploitation, sexual abuse and unrecognized paternity – as such acts can undermine the credibility and effectiveness of peacekeeping missions. The isolated allegations against Peruvian officials and experts on mission are being duly investigated, she stated, and she encouraged all Member States to cooperate with the United Nations to protect victims, exchange information and facilitate investigation in this area.
Crimes against Humanity
SIMONA POPAN, representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, voiced support for a new convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, noting that while genocide and war crimes are regulated by conventions, crimes against humanity are not. They may nevertheless be more widespread than genocide or war crimes, as they may also occur in situations not involving armed conflict. Further, they do not require the intent to destroy certain groups of people, in whole or in part, as the crime of genocide does. A new convention will offer an important legal tool by facilitating national investigations and prosecutions, she pointed out, also recalling the MLA Initiative, which aims at enhancing inter‑State cooperation in the prosecution of perpetrators of international crimes.
Both processes can complement each other, she stressed, adding that adoption of these new instruments would substantially contribute to the fight against impunity at international level. Recalling that many delegations supported the International Law Commission’s recommendation to elaborate a convention based on its draft articles on crimes against humanity, she acknowledged that some delegations now consider that a number of the articles require further clarification. Further, some delegations are hesitant to convene a diplomatic conference at this stage. However, there are suitable institutional frameworks that would enable an open and frank preparatory debate, she pointed out, calling for the establishment of an ad hoc committee with a clear mandate and a clear timeline for the completion of its work.
JULIA FIELDING (Sweden), also speaking for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, said that the lack of a convention on the crimes against humanity leaves civilian populations vulnerable to such atrocities and allows perpetrators continuously acting with impunity. Urging Member States to redouble the efforts to prevent and punish these heinous crimes, she emphasized that the draft articles adopted by the International Law Commission have significant potential for establishing a convention on crimes against humanity, which would promote an inter‑State cooperation and efficient investigations of such crimes.
This process must not be delayed any longer, she stressed, noting substantial support among the States to move forward towards the elaboration of such an instrument. Recalling requests for clarification on some of the draft articles, shared by the States, she proposed setting up an ad hoc committee with a clear mandate and time frame to provide a suitable format for transparent, inclusive and constructive discussions.
YONG-ERN NATHANIEL KHNG (Singapore) said that the International Law Commission’s draft articles on crimes against humanity can contribute to strengthening accountability by providing useful practical guidance to States on this topic. However, he also noted that the draft articles can be improved or clarified in several areas, including the resolution of potential conflicts of jurisdiction. Where such conflicts exist, the draft articles should give primacy to the State that can exercise jurisdiction on the basis of one of the limbs in paragraph 1 of draft article 7, rather than a custodial State that can only exercise jurisdiction on the basis of paragraph 2 of that draft article. Noting that other delegations’ statements and written submissions contain valuable ideas – but also demonstrate remaining divergence in views – he welcomed continuing discussion on such matters.
ALHAJI FANDAY TURAY (Sierra Leone) stated his expectation that the General Assembly conduct its work effectively despite current modalities, and not use the pandemic to validate a lack of progress on its important work. Supporting the elaboration of a convention on crimes against humanity, he said this would elevate such crimes to the level of genocide and war crimes and would constitute a gap‑filling treaty by obligating States to prevent such crimes, rather than just punish perpetrators. States must develop their national laws and judicial systems while also cooperating with other States to prevent, investigate and prosecute these crimes. Noting the continued commission of such crimes with impunity, he stressed that the onus is on the Sixth Committee to act, stating that the best use of the Committee’s time is to focus on modalities for the way forward on this topic.
NASIR UDDIN (Bangladesh), thanking the International Law Commission for the draft articles on crimes against humanity, said that his country experienced this crime during its liberation war in 1971. Noting that 3 million civilians lost their lives and 200,000 women were subjected to sexual violence during that time, he said that concomitant with the principle of complementarity, Bangladesh established a tribunal in 2010 to punish the perpetrators of those crimes. Further, the country has also extended cooperation with the International Criminal Court to assist in the case of the Rohingya Muslims. Affirming the primary responsibility of States to prevent crimes against humanity within their jurisdictions, he voiced support for a United Nations convention on this matter, stressing that the negotiations must be carried out in an inclusive and transparent manner.
NASER ASIABIPOUR (Iran) said the fragmented views on the International Law Commission draft articles show that there is no consensus on how to address all aspects of this serous crime unanimously. Attempts to incorporate definitions from instruments that are not universal has further distanced States from consensus. He underscored that there is an accumulation of instruments on the subject “rather than a normative gap”, citing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the multiplicity of national and international practices. “We doubt that a new convention will be a positive development,” he said, adding that it will only add to the accumulation of existing standards. The idea of selective and politicized application of such a convention for the benefit of certain countries, if it were to exist, is a concern for many independent countries, he added.
AHMED ABDELAZIZ AHMED ELGHARIB (Egypt), noting his delegation’s previous active participation in the negotiations on this item, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the prevention of crimes against humanity and combating impunity. Noting that the Commission’s draft articles contain many useful elements, he said that they do have many legal problems, including references to the Rome Statute, which does not enjoy universal membership. Also highlighting article 7, which concerns the issue of national jurisdiction, he noted it does not enjoy international consensus. Therefore, it is premature for the Sixth Committee to make a convention based on the draft articles or call for a conference for the adoption of such a convention, he said, adding that Member States should be given enough time to consider the drafts and their alignment with national legislations.
AZELA GUERRERO ARUMPAC-MARTE (Philippines) pointed out that, if the draft articles were to become the basis of a convention on crimes against humanity, her country’s policy complies with the fundamental obligation – contained in draft article 6 – to criminalize crimes against humanity under national law. Domestic law also defines crimes against humanity consistent with the draft articles but contemplates the concept of persecution more broadly as national law specifically mentions persecution on the basis of sexual orientation. However, further deliberation is needed before a convention based on the draft articles can be elaborated, she said, citing concerns previously raised by States in prior deliberations such as State sovereignty, overbroad assertions of jurisdiction and politicization of human rights.
YUSNIER ROMERO PUENTES (Cuba) said that a convention on crimes against humanity should reflect, as a fundamental principle, that the primary responsibility for preventing and punishing serious international crimes committed under its jurisdiction should lie with the State in question. One of the cardinal principles of international law is that States have the sovereign right to exercise national jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed in their territory or by their nationals; such States are in the best position to effectively prosecute the perpetrators of such offenses. Only when States are unable or unwilling to exercise such jurisdiction should the application of other prosecutorial mechanisms be considered. He added that the Sixth Committee should continue to consider the draft articles on the basis of State commentaries.
GENG SHUANG (China) said that, while the elaboration of a convention needs to be based on State practice and international consensus, there is no unified State practice concerning crimes against humanity. The draft articles basically reproduce the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Rome Statute, he said, noting that the Statute is not a universal international treaty; more than one third of the United Nations membership have not joined it. Crimes against humanity also concern sensitive issues on which the international community remains divided, such as immunity of State officials. The elaboration of a convention needs to be underpinned by international mutual trust. However, in recent years, certain countries have arbitrarily accused other countries of committing crimes against humanity while turning a blind eye to their own grave international crimes, he noted.
LUCIA TERESA SOLANO RAMIREZ (Colombia), calling on States to guarantee better cooperation between the Sixth Committee and the International Law Commission, said it is vital to provide the Commission with the input it requires and study its outputs in a timely fashion to make best possible use of its members’ expertise. Thanking the Commission for the draft articles, she reaffirmed her country’s unwavering commitment to the fight against impunity. While an international legally binding instrument in this field could serve to consolidate and strengthen international criminal law, she added that the instrument proposed by the Commission could benefit from a number of additions or supplementary material. Her country’s criminal legislation does not have a category for crimes against humanity, she said, but it has filled this vacuum through the jurisprudence of its courts, particularly the Supreme Court of Justice and through the guidelines issued to prosecutors.
SINA ALAVI (Liechtenstein) voiced his strong support for efforts to conclude a future convention on crimes against humanity, thereby ensuring justice for victims. Using the Rome Statute as the basis for the draft articles was “the only right thing to do,” he said, noting that the latter’s crimes against humanity provisions were the result of painstaking and universal intergovernmental negotiations. He added that he was encouraged to see language in the draft articles concerning international cooperation, including with international accountability mechanisms. Such instruments – for example the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria and the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar – are integral to the modern international criminal justice system. The elaboration of a convention on crimes against humanity would be complementary and would not compete with efforts to formalize inter‑State cooperation for the national prosecution of the most serious crimes of international concern, he added.
SERGIO AMARAL ALVES DE CARVALHO (Portugal), associating himself with the European Union, said it was imperative for States to heed the recommendation of the International Law Commission and convene a diplomatic conference to negotiate and adopt a convention on the basis of the draft articles. Recalling the Committee’s failure in 2020 to achieve effective progress on this agenda item, he emphasized that it must do so at the current session. Opinions differ on the timing and shape of a discussion that could lead towards the elaboration of a convention and different views also exist on the maturity of the Committee’s reflection on the draft articles as well as on the need for more time to iron out divergences. However, “those differences must not trap the Sixth Committee in a sterile repetition of arguments leading to a cycle of consideration and postponement,” he warned, adding that the Sixth Committee cannot remain paralysed. In addition, the existence of an additional project on mutual legal assistance should not be used as an excuse not to advance either initiative.
THABO MICHAEL MOLEFE (South Africa) voiced his support for a convention based on the draft articles, which will ensure accountability for crimes against humanity – the only category of serious crimes not governed by an international convention. He emphasized the importance of the principle of complementarity in international criminal law, pointing out that, while international courts serve an important role, it is first and foremost the responsibility of States to investigate and prosecute such crimes. For its part, South Africa has criminalized such acts under national law and provides mutual legal assistance in relation to the same. Noting that South Africa still suffers from the wounds of its past, he said that his country knows first‑hand that healing cannot take place without accountability, which the convention offers an opportunity to ensure.
JULIAN SIMCOCK (United States) said the absence of a treaty addressing crimes against humanity has left a hole in the international legal framework that should be addressed. The Commission’s final draft articles on the prevention and punishment of such crimes are an important step in this regard. Recognizing that Member States have a range of views on the final draft articles and the way forward, he said that these articles should be modified through further discussion in an ad hoc committee. This committee should consider modalities of work that would enable a substantive and thorough exchange of views by Member States on the project and on the Commission’s recommendation for the elaboration of a convention by the General Assembly or by a conference of States. This approach, he noted, would ensure that any future convention would be effective in practice and widely ratified.
SARAH WEISS MA’UDI (Israel) noted that a meaningful and inclusive discussion among States should take place to address differences with regard to the substantive content and form of the draft articles. In this context, she called for the establishment of a forum in the framework of the Sixth Committee, where Member States could clarify outstanding issues and resolve differences with an aim of reaching a consensus. She further stressed that effective safeguards need to be put in place to prevent abuse of the draft articles for political gains. The draft articles should accurately reflect well‑established principles of international law, she said, citing several articles which do not properly reflect the current state of play of customary international law.
VINÍCIUS FOX DRUMMOND CANÇADO TRINDADE (Brazil) pointed out that the Rome Statute inspired much of the draft articles, thereby ensuring their consistency with the international law system. In that regard, the preamble of the draft articles should include a reference from the Rome Statute on the general prohibition under international law on the use of force. Further, issues of jurisdiction should be reflected in the final product. Noting that the International Criminal Court should be prioritized when the custody State has no nexus with the crime, the suspects or the victims, he said the draft articles would also benefit from the addition of safeguards to prevent the abuse of the universality principle, such as a provision giving jurisdictional priority to States with the closest links to the crimes. He added his support for the elaboration of a convention by the General Assembly or another international conference, on the basis of the draft articles.
DAVID ANTONIO GIRET SOTO (Paraguay) said that crimes against humanity are prohibited under his country’s Constitution, including crimes of genocide, torture, forced disappearance and homicide on political grounds. Noting that several years have passed since the International Law Commission produced the draft articles on this topic, he said that the adoption of a legally binding convention might constitute a significant step forward in this area and inspire States to act to end these crimes. The fight against crimes against humanity should not be limited to prosecuting and punishing the immediate perpetrators thereof; rather, it should focus on laying the necessary foundation to ensure that such crimes do not reoccur. He therefore supported a convention based on the draft articles, as it would strengthen international law in this field.
LIGIA LORENA FLORES SOTO (El Salvador) said that her country’s criminal code has a provision relating to the regulation of individual crimes which are related to crimes against humanity, such as torture and forced disappearances. Further, El Salvador is a State party to several international instruments relating to human rights, including the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and the Geneva Conventions. Highlighting article 10 of her country’s penal code, which is a provision to recognize and apply the principle of universal jurisdiction, she said that this article is applied independently and does not depend on where a crime is committed and who has committed it. The gridlock caused by the pandemic must not distract the international community from taking further action on this important matter, she emphasized.
MICHAL MLYNÁR (Slovakia), aligning himself with the European Union, called the set of 15 articles with commentaries a solid basis for codification. Referring to some States’ concerns regarding specific articles, which made them reluctant to organize a diplomatic conference, he noted that Slovakia is ready to work with all delegations to establish a predictable process for substantive discussions. A strong response from the United Nations is needed to strengthen international criminal justice and the fight against impunity. There is a common agreement on the fundamental obligation to prevent and punish crimes against humanity and on the need to fill a legal gap, he said.
PABLO ADRIÁN ARROCHA OLABUENAGA (Mexico), recalling his delegation’s disappointment at the lack of substantive discussion on crimes against humanity, said that the Sixth Committee’s adoption of a resolution on this matter last year should not be considered part of a sterile cycle of technical rollovers. Calling for an inclusive negotiation process on the Commission’s recommendations, he said it is necessary to create a critical road map for action. “We must not lose sight of the fact that there is a legal vacuum to fill,” he stressed, adding that a convention on crimes against humanity will fill that vacuum. What is also at stake is the relationship between the Commission and the Sixth Committee, he pointed out, calling on delegates to break the unproductive cycle of inaction on articles submitted by the Commission.
QUYEN THI HONG NGUYEN (Viet Nam) underlined the importance of respect for national sovereignty and non‑intervention in domestic matters of Member States. Highlighting article 422 of her country’s penal code, which penalizes genocide against the population of an area, as well as other crimes, she said that States must take the primary responsibility in preventing and punishing serious crimes. Calling for more efforts in building States’ capacity to fulfil this responsibility, she said that international criminal mechanisms must be resorted to only after all national measures have been exhausted. Noting challenges currently faced by international criminal institutions, she added that if an international convention is to be developed on this basis, it is critical that different national experiences and practices, especially on legal systems and matters, be fully reflected.
NATHALIE SCHNEIDER RITTENER (Switzerland) said it is undisputed that crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes that shock the conscience of humanity, and that preventing and punishing them is essential. Yet, decades after the adoption of conventions dealing with genocide and war crimes, there is still no universal convention on crimes against humanity. The Sixth Committee has an opportunity to fill this gap, she stressed, adding: “It is our responsibility to seize it.” Expressing support for the International Law Commission’s recommendation to elaborate a convention on the basis of the draft articles, she said such an instrument will complement existing treaty law on international core crimes while also helping States implement their primary responsibility to investigate them. It will also promote cooperation between States in investigating, prosecuting and punishing such crimes. To that end, she called on States to negotiate solutions that are as specific as possible with the creation of an ad hoc committee and a clear timetable for the next steps forward.
Mr. MAGYAR (Hungary), aligning himself with the European Union, said that – unlike genocide and war crimes – crimes against humanity still fall mostly outside the treaty framework. It is long overdue to address this legal gap with a convention that – solely by its existence – would help fight impunity. To this end, he added his support to establishing an ad hoc committee or working group within the Sixth Committee to resolve issues hindering agreement on the draft articles and to consider further steps to elaborate a convention based thereon. He also welcomed the MLA Initiative, which aims to enhance inter‑State cooperation in the prosecution of crimes against humanity, and expressed hope that the postponed diplomatic conference thereon will be held in the near future.
GEORG CHRISTIAN KLUSSMANN (Germany), associating himself with the European Union, recalled that many delegations supported the elaboration of a convention on this topic in the summer of 2019. Two years later, it is crucial to facilitate meaningful discussion towards such an instrument. He expressed his belief that consensus exists among States over the core principles contained within the draft articles, which can provide the basis for future negotiations. An ad hoc committee would allow both ambitious and cautious approaches to be discussed in an efficient, expert setting. Pointing out that no international convention covers these crimes – unlike genocide or war crimes – he said that a convention on crimes against humanity would remedy a historical gap that has practical implications for ensuring accountability.
EDGAR DANIEL LEAL MATTA (Guatemala), reaffirming the importance of establishing legal norms at the international level to prevent crimes against humanity, highlighted the effects of such crimes on the civilian population, particularly, the suffering visited upon women, girls and boys. The primary responsibility for prosecuting such crimes rests on each State, he stressed, adding that the work of the international human rights system serves to complement States’ work on this. As a State party to the Rome Statute, his country is committed to the work of the International Criminal Court, he said, adding that as a peace‑loving nation, Guatemala supports the proposal to organize an intergovernmental conference aimed at establishing a convention on crimes against humanity.
QASIM AZIZ BUTT (Pakistan), urging the international community to work together to combat impunity for crimes against humanity, welcomed the draft articles for providing useful guidance to Member States on that matter. However, it is premature to draw any concrete conclusion on the final form of the draft articles, he said, noting that comments from States demonstrate the divergence in views. In particular, draft articles 7, 9, and 10 are based on an extensive interpretation of universal jurisdiction on which there is no consensus, he said. Calling for more time to enable States to study the draft articles and ensure consistency with national legislation, he said it is unwise to rush the process and convene a conference. One way forward would be setting up a working group to continue discussion, he said, adding that a future convention should be widely accepted by the entire international community, including those States who are not of the Rome Statute.
MAREK ZUKAL (Czech Republic), aligning himself with the European Union, said that the cruelty of crimes against humanity should lead to the adoption of norms that would clearly outlaw them and fill a considerable legal gap in the international law. Expressing full support to the International Law Commission’s recommendation for launching negotiations on the adoption of a convention on crimes against humanity, he stressed that the time has come for the Sixth Committee to take the lead. To that end, he called upon the Committee to create an ad hoc committee, where the States can discuss substantively future procedures concerning the draft articles and their content.
KAJAL BHAT (India) said that existing international instruments already contemplate crimes against humanity as punishable offenses. The draft articles are based on the Rome Statute and, for those Member States who have not yet subscribed to that Statute, national legislation already captures these offenses. She said that there is no need for a convention on this topic and opposed any work thereon that duplicates existing legal mechanisms. It is premature, she added, to draw any conclusions on the nature or format of the draft articles without having an in‑depth discussion on the same.
ELIE ALTARSHA (Syria) said that the primary responsibility for preventing and punishing crimes against humanity rests with States, who possess the sovereign right to exercise national jurisdiction over these crimes. To support this approach, the international community should work to build national capacity and strengthen judicial institutions. Any future convention addressing crimes against humanity should comport with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, especially the principles of sovereign equality and non‑interference in internal affairs. He voiced his support for a thorough consideration of the draft articles to ensure their consistency with national law, and called on the Committee to continue its deliberation on this agenda item.
TIGRAN GALSTYAN (Armenia) welcomed an inclusive process on the discussion of elaborating a convention on crimes against humanity, which is intended to fill a perceived gap in the international legal landscape. At the heart of crimes against humanity is a history of continued violations of fundamental human rights. The new convention would add to the prevention toolbox of the United Nations and play an important role in facilitating inter‑State cooperation. At the national level, the new convention would offer an important legal tool for prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity by facilitating national investigations, prosecutions and punishments for such crimes. He spotlighted that a degree of consensus has been duly captured in the draft articles, reflecting the shared objective of combating impunity for the perpetrators and delivering justice to the victims.
10月26日波士顿报道，现年82岁的民主党前总统拜登今天晚间突然现身波士顿出席肯尼迪研究所举办的终身成就奖颁奖仪式，他在接受颁奖后公开讲话时称，美国现在这些日子是“黑暗的日子”。不久之前，他完成了针对他身患侵袭性前列腺癌的放射和激素治疗。 拜登在讲话结束时呼吁美国人“重新站起来”。他在讲话中还敦促美国人保持乐观，并称不要因为特朗普总统对言论自由的攻击和对行政权力界限的试探而放弃。 拜登称：“自建国以来，美国一直是世界历史上政府最强大理念的灯塔，这个理念比任何军队都强大。我们比独裁者更强大。” 拜登说，美国依赖于一个权力有限的总统、一个运转良好的国会和一个自主的司法机构。在联邦政府面临有史以来第二长停摆之际，特朗普总统利用资金缺口来对政府施加新的控制。 拜登还说：“朋友们，我无法粉饰这一切。这是黑暗的日子。重新找到我们真正的指南针，只要我们保持信念，我们就会一如既往地变得更加强大、更加智慧、更加坚韧、更加公正。” 拜登列举了一些坚守立场、抵制现任政府威胁的人士，例如抗议辞职的联邦雇员，以及被特朗普总统盯上的大学和喜剧演员。 拜登说：“深夜节目主持人明知自己的职业生涯岌岌可危，却依然坚持捍卫言论自由。” 拜登还对那些投票或公开反对特朗普政府的共和党民选官员发出了批评，他说：“美国不是童话，250年来，它一直在不断拉锯，在危险与可能性之间进行着一场关乎生存的斗争。” 民主党人拜登在他的白宫任职一届后于今年1月卸任。他在2024年美国总统大选期间与特朗普总统的辩论惨败后，拜登面临极大压力，加之对其年龄、健康和精神健康状况的担忧，最终被迫放弃了竞选连任。副总统哈里斯随后立即开始竞选连任，但于去年11月惨败给了共和党总统候选人特朗普。 今年5月，拜登卸任后的办公室宣布，他被诊断出患有恶性前列腺癌，且癌细胞已扩散至骨骼。前列腺癌的侵袭性使用格里森评分进行分级。评分范围为6至10分，8、9和10分的前列腺癌侵袭性更强。拜登办公室表示，他的评分为9分。
10月26日吉隆坡报道，美国财政部长贝森特（Scott Bessent）今天表示，在特朗普总统与中国国家主席习近平10月30日会晤之前，他已就中美贸易谈判达成了“实质性框架”，这有可能避免对中国进口商品征收高额关税。 贝森特表示：“我认为我们已经为下周四在韩国会晤的两位领导人达成了实质性框架。总统威胁说，如果中国实施稀土全球出口管制，将征收100%的关税，这给了我最大的筹码，所以我认为我们已经避免了这种情况。”他还补充说，如果协议得以实施，对中国商品征收关税将可避免。 关于中国威胁对贵重稀土矿物实施出口管制，贝森特表示，他认为“他们会将这一举措推迟一年，以便重新审查”。 贝森特还暗示，在持续的贸易战中，中国停止从美国购买大豆后，两国可能就美国大豆达成协议。他说：“我相信，当与中国达成的协议公布后，我们的大豆种植户会对本季以及未来几年的大豆种植情况感到非常满意。” 据美国大豆协会称，中国是美国大豆的最大买家，2023年和2024年购买了美国大豆出口量的50%以上。
10月26日加州萨克拉门托报道，民主党人加州州长纽森（Gavin Newsom）今天对外宣称，他将在2026年中期选举后考虑是否竞选美国总统。纽森的州长任期将于2027年1月结束，由于任期限制，他无法再次参选州长。 58岁的纽森今天在回复明年中期选举结束后是否会“认真考虑”竞选总统的问题时表示：“是的，否则我就是在撒谎，我就是撒谎。而且我不会——我不能那样做。” 纽森曾多次前往关键的摇摆州，包括今年7月访问南卡罗来纳州。目前，该州计划在2028年总统大选中举办首场民主党初选，但情况可能会有所改变。纽森当时的行程包含多个地点，他会见了该州民主党领导人，并在一家咖啡店驻足，号召活动人士，并帮助店员提供浓缩咖啡。 纽森在谈及在南卡罗来纳州与民主党人会面时说道：“我碰巧，感谢上帝，我做对了这行，我爱人。我真的爱人。” 纽森表示，在经历了包括阅读障碍在内的诸多挑战之后，他可能竞选美国总统的消息提醒他，人生可能会朝着意想不到的方向发展。 纽森还表示：“我不知道，一个SAT成绩只有960分，却仍然读不懂讲稿，总是待在教室后排的人，竟然会把这些都扔掉，这本身就很不可思议。谁知道呢？我期待着2028年谁能参选，谁能实现那个目标。而这正是美国人民应该思考的问题。” 纽森认为，他目前的重点是通过加州第50号提案。这项他一直倡导的投票措施将允许州民主党人暂时改变美国众议院选区的边界，使其更有利于民主党。 纽森说，他的努力将在下周的特别选举中决定结果，这是对特朗普总统推动共和党控制的州，如德克萨斯州修改国会选区划分的回应，以便共和党明年有更大的机会保住其在众议院的微弱多数席位。 纽森还说：“我认为这关乎我们的民主。这关乎这个共和国的未来。我认为这关乎开国元勋们为之奋斗乃至牺牲的事业，关乎法治，而非特朗普的统治。” 投票前紧张局势加剧，两党都认为重新划分选区的努力对于实现明年赢得众议院多数席位的目标至关重要。无论哪个党控制着众议院，都拥有对行政部门的传票和监督权。 纽森在10月23日的一场劳工活动上对50号提案的支持者说：“我们有成百上千的移民和海关执法局（ICE）和边境巡逻队。”他指的是该州的联邦特工。纽森预测，在11月4日的特别选举之前，他们的人数可能会增加。 纽森还说：“别以为选举日那天我们不会再看到更多这样的事，这些人可不是闹着玩的。” 纽森谴责美国司法部表示将派遣自己的监督员监督加州的补选和新泽西州的州长选举，称这是特朗普政府恐吓民主党人的举动。美国司法部表示，此举的目的是“确保透明度、选票安全以及遵守联邦法律”。 虽然纽森长期以来一直是加州的常客，但他去年涉足总统政治时引起了人们的强烈关注，当时他是民主党人拜登总统的坚定捍卫者，尤其是在拜登与特朗普的辩论表现之后，这促使许多民主党人呼吁拜登退出2024年的竞选。…
10月26日吉隆坡报道，美国总统特朗普今天在马来西亚首都吉隆坡见证了柬埔寨和泰国签署扩大停火协议仪式，该协议由特朗普总统在今年夏天协助促成，成功结束了柬泰两国的边境冲突。扩大停火协议签署后，特朗普总统又与柬埔寨和泰国达成了单独的经济协议。 此次仪式是特朗普抵达马来西亚吉隆坡东盟（ASEAN）年度峰会后参加的首项活动，也是他亚洲之行的一部分，他此次亚洲之行还包括将对日本和韩国的访问。 特朗普总统在见证了柬埔寨首相洪玛奈（Hun Manet）和泰国总理阿努廷（Anutin Charnvirakul）签署扩大停火协议时表示：“我们做了一件很多人认为不可能的事情。” 该协议要求泰国释放18名被俘柬埔寨士兵，并要求两国开始从边境撤走重型武器。柬埔寨总理称这是“历史性的一天”，泰国总理则表示，该协议奠定了“持久和平的基石”。 特朗普总统此前威胁对柬泰两国征收更高关税，以迫使它们同意结束这场已造成数十人死亡、数十万人流离失所的边境冲突。 此前，特朗普总统今天搭乘空军一号专机抵达马来西亚首都吉隆坡时，在走过红毯时与当地演员一起表演了他标志性的竞选舞蹈。他还一手挥舞着美国国旗，一手挥舞着马来西亚国旗。 马来西亚总理安瓦尔（Anwar Ibrahim）赞扬了泰国和柬埔寨之间的协议，并在峰会开幕致辞中表示：“它提醒我们，和解不是让步，而是一种勇气。” 特朗普总统今天还与马来西亚签署了涉及贸易和关键矿产的协议。由于中国限制了关键技术制造零部件的出口，美国一直在努力扩大其供应链，以减少对中国的依赖。 美国和马来西亚发表的联合声明称，双方达成协议“旨在加强双边经济关系，这将为两国出口商提供前所未有的进入对方市场的机会”。 该声明宣称：“该协议将以我们长期的经济关系为基础，包括2004年签署的《美国-马来西亚贸易投资框架协议》。
10月26日吉隆坡报道，美国总统特朗普总统于当地时间周日上午10点后不久抵达马来西亚首都吉隆坡，在亚洲之旅的首站与马来西亚总理安瓦尔举行了双边会谈，并与东盟 (ASEAN) 柬埔寨和泰国领导人举行会谈。 特朗普总统在为期一周的亚洲之旅里，还将与日本、韩国及中国领导人会晤，其重要目标是与中国国家主席习近平达成贸易协议，以期结束持续数月的贸易战。 特朗普总统在飞行途中发帖表示，他将在抵达后与泰国总理会面，并签署泰柬和平协议，并提及泰国太后诗丽吉最近去世的消息。 预计特朗普总统将于此次海外之行的最后一天10月30日，在韩国与中国国家主席习近平举行会谈。 今年夏天，随着美中关税和贸易谈判继续进行，两国关系有所缓和，但最近，在美中两国领导人会晤前几周，中国宣布加强对稀土矿物的出口管制，紧张局势进一步加剧。特朗普政府认为，这些扩大的限制措施适用于世界各国，将对全球制造业产生重大影响。特朗普总统的高级经济顾问称中国的出口管制是“经济胁迫”和“敲诈勒索”。 作为回应，特朗普总统威胁称，如果与习近平的谈判失败，美国将从11月1日起对中国进口产品加征100%的关税。 即便如此，特朗普总统仍显得乐观，表示期待与习近平会晤时“能够达成一项好协议”。他表示，预计双方还将就中国购买美国大豆，甚至核问题进行磋商。 访问马来西亚后，特朗普将前往日本，预计将与日本新任首相高市早苗举行会谈。高市早苗是一位政治保守派，也是日本首位女性领导人。尽管美日两国已经达成贸易协议，但此次会谈仍将重点关注美日关系的这一方面。 预计特朗普10月29日还将访问韩国参加亚太经合组织（APEC）峰会。届时，特朗普总统将与韩国总统举行双边会晤，并在亚太经合组织（APEC）工商领导人午餐会上发表主旨演讲，并参加亚太经合组织工作晚宴。
10月25日第比利斯报道，格鲁吉亚国家安全局（SSG）今天表示，三名中国公民在格鲁吉亚首都第比利斯被捕，他们试图非法购买2公斤（4.4磅）铀。 格鲁吉亚国家安全局在一份声明中表示，嫌疑人计划经俄罗斯将核材料运往中国，并公布了扣押行动的视频片段。 该机构表示：“三名中国公民在第比利斯被拘留，他们试图非法购买2公斤核材料—铀。” 并补充说，该犯罪集团成员计划支付40万美元（34.4万欧元）购买这些放射性物质。 据当局称，一名已在格鲁吉亚的中国公民违反格鲁吉亚签证规定，带领专家前往格鲁吉亚，在该国各地搜寻铀矿。 声明称，该犯罪集团的其他成员在中国协调了此次行动。肇事者在“商讨非法交易细节”时被确认身份并被拘留。 该机构没有具体说明逮捕的具体时间，也没有提供嫌疑人的身份。 今年1月，据称是日本犯罪集团头目的日本人海老泽武（Takeshi Ebisawa）承认了一项指控，他被控密谋从缅甸贩运铀和钚，因为他相信伊朗会将其用于制造核武器。