国产AV

Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects

Background (Source: A/61/100)

At its nineteenth session, in February 1965, the General Assembly established the Special Committee on 国产AVkeeping Operations, which was to undertake a comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects, including ways of overcoming the financial difficulties of the United Nations (resolution 2006 (XIX)).

At present, the Special Committee is composed of the following Member States: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia,2 Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America,
Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Zambia and Zimbabwe. Observers are: Angola, Burundi, Cape Verde, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Haiti, Israel, Lesotho, Viet Nam, Yemen, European Community, Holy See, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) and Permanent Observer for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

The General Assembly considered the question at its twentieth to fifty-ninth
sessions (resolutions 2053 (XX), 2220 (XXI), 2308 (XXII), 2451 (XXIII), 2576 (XXIV), 2670 (XXV), 2835 (XXVI), 2965 (XXVII), 3091 (XXVIII), 3239 (XXIX), 3457 (XXX), 31/105, 32/106, 33/114, 34/53, 35/121, 36/37, 37/93, 38/31, 39/97, 40/163, 41/67, 42/161, 43/59 A and B, 44/49, 45/75, 46/48, 47/71, 47/72, 48/42, 48/43, 49/37, 50/30, 51/136, 52/69, 53/58, 54/81, 55/135, 56/225 A and B, 57/129, 57/336, 58/315, 59/281 and 59/300).

At its resumed fifty-ninth session, in June 2005, the General Assembly requested the Special Committee to include the issue of a comprehensive review of a strategy to eliminate future sexual exploitation and abuse in United Nations peacekeeping operations in its report to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session (resolution 59/300).

At its resumed sixtieth session, in June 2006, the General Assembly endorsed the proposals, recommendations and conclusions of the Special Committee on 国产AVkeeping Operations, contained in paragraphs 28 to 188 of its report (A/60/19); and requested the Special Committee to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at its sixty-first session (resolution 60/263).

At its resumed sixtieth session, in September 2006, the General Assembly endorsed the proposals, recommendations and conclusions of the Special Committee contained in paragraphs 5 to 10 of the report on its 2006 resumed session (A/60/19/Add.1); urged Member States, the Secretariat and the relevant organs of the United Nations to take all necessary steps to implement those proposals, recommendations and conclusions, and supported the request of the Special Committee to the Secretary-General that he provide a progress report on the implementation of its recommendations at its next regular session; and requested the Special Committee to include the issue in its report to the Assembly at its sixty-first session (resolution 60/289).
At the same resumed session, the General Assembly, on the proposal of the
President, decided to postpone consideration of the report of the Group of Legal Experts (see A/60/980) to the sixty-first session to avail the Sixth Committee at that session of the opportunity to consider the report, submitted pursuant to resolutions 59/300 and 60/263, in which the Assembly endorsed the recommendations of the Special Committee on 国产AVkeeping Operations in its respective reports (A/59/19/Rev.1 and A/60/19 and Add.1) (decision 60/563).

Consideration at the sixty-first session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 33 at its 20th (, , , , , ) and 21st (, , , , , ) meetings, on 6 and 9 November 2006, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of: Guyana (on behalf of the Rio Group), Australia (also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand), Kuwait, Nigeria, Indonesia, and the Sudan.

Delegations commended the Group of Legal Experts for its report on ensuring the accountability of United Nations staff and experts on mission with respect to criminal acts committed in peacekeeping operations. While some favored a holistic approach to the topic, others were of the view that the Sixth Committee should focus on the recommendations contained in Chapter IV of the report of the Group of Legal Experts, relating to the jurisdiction of States other than the host State and, in particular, on issues concerning the draft convention annexed to the report.

Several speakers stressed the importance of providing peacekeeping personnel with adequate protection, including by bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes against such personnel. The need to ensure accountability for serious crimes committed by peacekeeping personnel, while respecting the human rights of the alleged offender was also stressed. It was suggested that clear regulations be adopted so as to ensure that peacekeepers' immunities would not lead to impunity.

Several speakers expressed support for a draft convention addressing jurisdictional and related issues, including the establishment of a Working Group to that effect. The view was expressed that priority should be given to the jurisdiction of the host State, whose legal capacity should be developed if necessary, while others urged States to enact extraterritorial legislation allowing the prosecution of crimes committed by their nationals in peacekeeping operations. Reference was further made to the difficulty in gathering sufficient evidence for prosecution and the need to improve coordination and transparency between the host country, the United Nations and the troop contributing countries was stressed. Further suggestions included: encouraging the development of UN investigative capability; emphasizing the importance of preventive measures, and providing appropriate training for peacekeepers. The view was expressed that recommendations and policies in this context should have universal application and not be limited to peacekeepers from developing countries.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 21st (, , , , , ) meeting, on 9 November, the representative of Liechtenstein, on behalf of the bureau, introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/61/L.13, entitled "Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission", and orally revised it. The Secretary of the Sixth Committee made a statement on the conference service implications of draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.13, as orally revised. At its 21st (, , , , , ) meeting, on 9 November, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.13, as orally revised, without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of the agenda item 33.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2007)

Background (Source: A/61/100)

This item was included in the agenda of the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly, in 1982, at the request of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (A/37/142).

The General Assembly considered the question biennially at its thirty-seventh to fifty-seventh sessions (resolutions 37/116, 39/77, 41/72, 43/161, 45/38, 47/30, 49/48, 51/155, 53/96, 55/148 and 57/14).

At its session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Assembly at its sixty-first session a report on the status of the Additional Protocols relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts, as well as on measures taken to strengthen the existing body of international humanitarian law, inter alia, with respect to its dissemination and full implementation at the national level, based on information received from Member States and the International Committee of the Red Cross (resolution 59/36).

Work undertaken at the 61st Session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 8th (, , , , , ) and 21st (, , , , , ) meetings, on 18 October and 9 November 2006.

Statements were made by the representatives of: Australia (on behalf of CANZ), Finland (on behalf of the European Union; the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania; the candidate countries Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia; as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova), Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries); Guyana (on behalf of the Rio Group), United Arab Emirates, the Sudan, Switzerland, Mexico, Qatar, Ghana, Malaysia, Japan, Kenya, Syria, Cuba, United States of America, Israel, and Lebanon. A statement was also made by the observer delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Delegations recalled the importance of the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols Additional thereto. It was noted with approval that, with the recent accession of Montenegro and Nauru, the Conventions had achieved universal participation. States were also encouraged to accept the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission, pursuant to Article 90 of the First Additional Protocol. Some delegations welcomed the adoption of the Third Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, relating to the Adoption of an Additional Emblem.

Delegations commended the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on its role in the codification, development and dissemination of IHL, as well as its activities in providing technical assistance and monitoring compliance with IHL. Some delegations welcomed the ICRC's Study on customary international humanitarian law, while others expressed concern about its methodology, and in particular, its conclusion that certain rules contained in the Additional Protocols have become customary international law for all States.

Some delegations referred to national initiatives designed to implement and disseminate IHL, and welcomed the Secretary-General's report containing information in this regard (A/61/222 and Add.1). It was cautioned that political considerations should not impede the impartial development or application of IHL.

The Committee concluded its debate on this item.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 21st (, , , , , ) meeting, on 9 November 2006, the representative of Sweden introduced draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.9, entitled "Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts". It was announced that China, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Madagascar, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Nigeria, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania and Uruguay had joined as sponsors of draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.9.

The representatives of Egypt and the Islamic Republic of Iran spoke in explanation of position before taking action on draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.9.

The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.9, without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 75.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2008)

Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives

Background (Source: A/61/100)

This item was included in the agenda of the thirty-fifth session of the General
Assembly, in 1980, at the request of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden (A/35/142).

The General Assembly considered the item annually at its thirty-sixth to forty-third sessions, and biennially thereafter (resolutions 36/33, 37/108, 38/136, 39/83, 40/73, 41/78, 42/154, 43/167, 45/39, 47/31, 49/49, 51/156, 53/97, 55/149 and 57/15).

At its session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Assembly at its sixty-first session a report containing (a) information on the state of ratification of, and accessions to, the instruments relevant to the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives; and (b) a summary of the reports received from States on serious violations involving diplomatic and consular missions and representatives and actions taken against offenders, as well as of the views of States with respect to any measures needed to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives (resolution 59/37).

Work undertaken at the sixty-first session:

The Committee considered the item at its 8th (, , , , , ) and 20th (, , , , , ) meetings, on 18 October and 6 November 2006.

Statements were made by the representatives of Norway (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Finland (on behalf of the European Union; the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania; the candidate countries Turkey, Croatia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia; as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova), Canada (on behalf of CANZ), Malaysia, Israel, Cuba, the Russian Federation and the Sudan.

The delegations welcomed the recent Secretary-General's report on this item (A/61/119 and Add.1 and Add.2) and encouraged all States to follow the reporting procedure. States voiced their concern and condemned the continuing acts of violence against the security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and their representatives. They pledged to respect their obligations under international law and to continue to take all the necessary measures in order to protect the diplomatic and consular missions and the representatives within their territories. A point was also made that the General Assembly, in its resolution on the topic, should call States to take the necessary preventive measures, including in cases of armed conflicts, and to ensure proper investigation, with the United Nations participation, of acts of violence against the missions and their representatives.

Action taken by the Committee:

At the 20th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 6 November, the representative of Finland also on behalf of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Canada, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, the Russian Federation, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, subsequently joined by Albania, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Guinea, Honduras, Sierra Leone, Turkey and Uganda, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives" (A/C.6/61/L.5).

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.5 without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 76.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2008)

Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its thirty-ninth session

Background (Source: A/61/100)

The General Assembly established the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law at its twenty-first session, in 1966, to promote the progressive harmonization and unification of the law of international trade, and requested the Commission to submit an annual report to the Assembly (resolution 2205 (XXI)). The Commission began its work in 1968. It originally consisted of 29 Member States representing the various geographic regions and the principal legal systems of the world. At its twenty-eighth and fifty-seventh sessions, respectively, the General Assembly increased the membership of the Commission from 29 to 36 States (resolution 3108 (XXVIII)) and from 36 to 60 States (resolution 57/20).

At its session, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts finalized by the Commission; requested the Secretary-General to open it for signature; and called upon all Governments to consider becoming party to it (resolution 60/21).

At the same session, the General Assembly appealed to Governments, the relevant bodies of the United Nations system, organizations, institutions and individuals to make voluntary contributions to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Trust Fund for symposia; and requested the Secretary-General to bear in mind the particular characteristics of the mandate and work of the Commission in implementing page limits with respect to the documentation of the Commission (resolution 60/20).

Work undertaken at the Sixty-first session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 77 at its 1st (, , , , , ), 2nd (, , , , , ) and 15th (, , , , , ) meetings, on 10, 11 and 30 October 2006. At the 1st meeting, on 10 October, the Chairman of the UNCITRAL at its thirty-ninth session introduced the report of the Commission on the work of that session.

Statements were made by the representatives of Austria, India, Colombia, Algeria, Thailand, Mexico, Singapore, the United States of America, Belarus, France, Nepal, Australia, Morocco, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), China, Japan, the Russian Federation, Kenya, Canada and Iran (Islamic Republic of).

Several speakers commended the Commission on the progress it had achieved with regard to several topics, especially the draft Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions, the Recommendation regarding the interpretation of articles II(2) and VII(1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958) and the adoption of revised articles of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

The speakers supported the continuing efforts of the Commission in other topics under consideration and welcomed the work accomplished by working groups including the ones on procurement and transport law. Delegations also welcomed the possible future areas of work, namely: intellectual property law, electronic commerce, insolvency law and commercial fraud.

Several delegations stressed the importance of technical assistance to developing countries and renewed their appeal to States to make contributions to the trust fund established to assist developing countries to participate in the work of the Commission.

Several speakers welcomed the convening of an UNCITRAL congress in 2007 to review the results of the past and current work programmes as well as to elaborate topics for future work.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 15th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 30 October, the representative of Austria, on behalf of Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay, subsequently joined by Morocco, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its thirty-ninth session" (A/C.6/61/L.7).

Also at the 15th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 30 October, Malaysia introduced a draft resolution entitled "Revised Articles of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and the recommendation regarding the interpretation of article II, paragraph (2) and VII, paragraph (1) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done in New York on 10 June 1958" (A/C.6/61/L.8).

Still at its 15th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 30 October, the Committee adopted draft resolutions A/C.6/61/L.7, as orally revised, and A/C.6/61/L.8, both without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 77.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2007)

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighth session

Background (Source: A/61/100)

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 and with the objective of promoting the progressive development of international law and its codification (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 current session.

At its session, the General Assembly encouraged the Commission, during its fifty-eighth session, to complete its work on those topics that were near completion; drew the attention of Governments to the importance for the Commission of having their views on the following, which were adopted by the Commission at its fifty-sixth session: (a) the draft articles and commentary on diplomatic protection; and (b) the draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities; invited Governments to provide information to the Commission regarding: (a) shared natural resources; (b) effects of armed conflicts on treaties; (c) responsibility of international organizations; (d) expulsion of aliens; (e) unilateral acts of States; and (f) reservations to treaties; endorsed the decision of the Commission to include the topic "The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)" in its programme of work; and recommended that the debate on the report of the International Law Commission at the sixty-first session of the General Assembly commence on 23 October 2006 (resolution 60/22).

Work undertaken at the Sixty-first session:

The Sixth Committee considered agenda item 78 at its 9th (, , , , , ), 10th (, , , , , ), 11th (, , , , , ), 12th (, , , , , ), 13th (, , , , , ), 14th (, , , , , ), 15th (, , , , , ), 16th (, , , , , ), 17th (, , , , , ), 18th (, , , , , ), 19th (, , , , , ) and 21st (, , , , , ) meetings, on 23, from 25 to 27, and on 30 and 31 October and 1, 3 and 9 November 2006.

The Chairman of the International Law Commission at its fifty-eighth session
introduced the report of the Commission: chapters I to V and XIII at the 9th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 23 October; chapters VI and VII at the 13th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 27 October; chapters VIII and IX at the 17th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 31 October; and chapters X, XI and XII at the 18th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 1 November (see A/C.6/61/SR.9, 13, 17 and 18).

Statements were made by the representatives of China, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Japan, South Africa, Argentina, Norway (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Germany, United States of America, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, Republic of Korea, Romania, Portugal, France, Ukraine, Greece, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Rep. of), Czech Republic, Chile, Russian Federation, Morocco, India, Switzerland, Mexico, Nigeria, Cuba, Pakistan, Finland (on behalf of the European Union, the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania, the candidate countries Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova), Denmark (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Belgium, Uruguay, Ethiopia, Belarus, Jordan, Malaysia, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Israel, Bulgaria, Iraq, Colombia, Thailand, Indonesia, Algeria, Malaysia and Sierra Leone. The representatives of the observer delegations of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and of the European Commission also made statements.

A summary of the discussions on this agenda item may be found in the Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, during its sixty-first session, prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4/577 (, , , , , ) and Addendum (, , , , , )).

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 21st (, , , , , ) meeting, on 9 November, the representative of Romania, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-eighth session”

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.14
without a vote.Before the adoption of the draft resolution, the representative of Germany made a statement in explanation of position .

Also at the 21st (, , , , , ) meeting, on 9 November, the representative of Romania, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced two draft resolution respectively entitled “Diplomatic protection” (A/C.6/61/L.15) and “Allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities” (A/C.6/61/L.16).

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolutions A/C.6/61/L.15 and A/C.6/61/L.16 without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 78.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2007)

Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization

Background (Source: A/61/100)

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, 54/106, 55/156, 56/86, 57/24, 58/248 and 59/44).

At its session, the General Assembly decided that the Special Committee should hold its next session from 3 to 13 April 2006, and requested it to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at its sixty-first session (resolution 60/23). The Special Committee met at United Nations Headquarters from 3 to 12 April 2006.

At the same session, the General Assembly requested the Special Committee, at its session in 2006, to continue to consider, on a priority basis (a) 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; (b) and ways and means of improving its working methods and enhancing its efficiency with a view to identifying widely acceptable measures for future implementation; and requested the Secretary-General to submit to it at its sixty-first session a report on both the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, and a report on the implementation of the provisions of the Charter related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions (resolution 60/23).

Consideration at the Sixty-first session:

The Committee considered the item at its 5th (, , , , , ), 6th (, , , , , ), 12th (, , , , , ) and 22nd (, , , , , ) meetings, on 16 and 27 October and on 16 November 2006.

The Chairman of the 2006 session introduced the report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization (A/61/33).

The Director of the Codification Division, Office of Legal Affairs, made a statement on the status of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs. The Officer-in-Charge of the Security Council Practices and Charter Research Branch, Department of Political Affairs, made a statement on the status of the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.

Statements were made by the representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union, the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania, the candidate countries Turkey, Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and EFTA countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as the Republic of Moldova), Guyana (on behalf of the Rio Group), Gambia (on behalf the African Group), India, Sudan, Algeria, Myanmar, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Japan, China, Egypt, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, United States of America, Cameroon, Cuba, Belarus, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Vietnam, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Some delegations expressed the view that sanctions constituted an important tool for the maintenance of international peace and security. However, it was emphasized that sanctions should be clearly defined, targeted, limited in duration and periodically reviewed. Moreover, some delegations emphasized that sanctions should only be imposed in conformity with rules of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, and as a last resort after all peaceful means of settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the Charter have been exhausted. Concern was expressed that, in some cases, such procedures were not followed. Some delegations welcomed the work of the Security Council Informal Working Group on General Issues of Sanctions, noted with approval that all Security Council sanctions are currently targeted and that no State has requested assistance in the past year. However, some delegations stressed the need to establish an effective mechanism for listing and de-listing procedures, while acknowledging the efforts already taken inside and outside the United Nations in this regard.

Some delegations called for the effective implementation of Article 50 of the Charter by the establishment of a compensation mechanism for third States affected by the application of Sanctions. Other delegations noted that while Article 50 allowed affected States to present their concerns, it did not require any specific action by the Council. Nonetheless, they noted that some other measures could be envisioned to address these concerns, including by international financial institutions. Support was expressed for the proposal by the Russian Federation on "Declaration on the basic conditions and standard criteria for the introduction and application of sanctions and other coercive measures". Some delegations also supported the related proposal by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Support was expressed for the proposal on the legal basis for peacekeeping operations. It was pointed out that the work of other United Nations bodies on peacekeeping should not preclude the Committee's work on legal aspects of peacekeeping. However, a point was made that the issue could be transferred to other United Nations organs for consideration.

Some delegations expressed support for the joint proposal submitted by Belarus and the Russian Federation, regarding request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on 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 the right to self-defence.

As to the status and future role of the Trusteeship Council, it was reiterated that paragraph 176 of the Outcome Document has provided the direction for the work of the Special Committee.

Speakers commended the important role played by the International Court of Justice on the peaceful settlement of disputes and welcomed the adoption by the Special Committee of a draft resolution on the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Court.

Speakers generally welcomed the adoption by the Special Committee of the working paper on the working methods the Special Committee.

The efforts of the Secretariat towards the elimination of backlog in the preparation of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, and placing the advance versions of various studies on the United Nations website was welcomed. The Secretariat was urged to strengthen the work of the Interdepartmental Committee and to further develop cooperation with academia, so that the process of the preparation of the two publications could be accelerated. Some delegations called for the translation of the Repertory studies into other official languages of the United Nations. Concerning financial resources for the preparation of the Repertory, some delegations urged Member States to contribute to the trust fund established for this purpose.

Support was expressed to the proposals submitted by Cuba and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, concerning the "Strengthening of the role of the Organization and enhancing its effectiveness", and "the strengthening of the role of the Organization in the maintenance of international peace and security", respectively. In this regard, some delegations stressed particularly the need to enhance the role of the General Assembly in the field of maintenance of international peace and security.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 12th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 27 October, the representative of Egypt introduced the bureau text of a draft resolution entitled "Commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the International Court of Justice" (A/C.6/61/L.6).

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.6 by acclamation.

At the 22nd (, , , , , ) meeting, on 16 November, the representative of Egypt introduced a draft resolution entitled "Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization" (A/C.6/61/L.10 and Corr.1). At the same meeting, the Secretary of the Committee made a statement on the financial implications of draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.10 and Corr.1.

Also, at the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.10 and Corr.1 without a vote.

The representatives of Germany and Japan made statements in explanation of position after the adoption of the draft resolution.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 79.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2007)

The rule of law at the national and international levels

Background:

The item entitled "The rule of law at the national and international levels" was included in the provisional agenda of the sixty-first session of the General Assembly at the request of Liechtenstein and Mexico (A/61/142).

At its second plenary meeting on 13 September 2006, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the General Committee, decided to include the item in its agenda and to allocate it to the Sixth Committee.

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 6th (, , , , , ), 7th (, , , , , ), 20th (, , , , , ) and 22nd (, , , , , ) meetings, on 16 and 17 October and on 6 and 16 November 2006, respectively. Statements were made by the representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union, the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania, the candidate countries Turkey, Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and EFTA countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova), New Zealand (on behalf of CANZ), Pakistan, Liechtenstein, the Sudan, Switzerland, Mexico, Guyana (on behalf of the Rio Group), Ethiopia, Malaysia, Japan, China, Cuba, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, the United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, the Republic of Korea, Israel, India, Belarus, Algeria, the Russian Federation, Zambia, the United States of America, Indonesia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran (Islamic Republic of) and Egypt.

Support was expressed for the decision to include this item on the agenda. It was considered, however, that the Committee should be cautious not to duplicate the work being done elsewhere.

Some delegations stressed the importance of defining the concept of "rule of law" and determining its scope, in particular at the international level.

It was noted that the International Law Commission could consider certain issues of international criminal law, the responsibility of transnational corporations, activities of private military personnel or the relationship between human rights and international humanitarian law. Some delegations welcomed measures taken to reinforce interaction between the Sixth Committee and the International Law Commission, and called for further informal inter-active debates with members of the Commission.

Delegations commended the active role of the Secretary-General in promoting the ratification and implementation of treaties through the organisation of treaty events. It was also noted with satisfaction that the rule of law and transitional justice initiatives had been included in the mandates of recent peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions.

While technical assistance and capacity-building initiatives undertaken by the United Nations were commended, it was felt that the Organization should increase the efficiency of this assistance, expand it to broader areas of international law and focus on the specific needs of Member States. It was further proposed that States could request legal advice from OLA on a collective basis regarding the concrete, practical difficulties that they face upon the domestic implementation of international law.

Delegations emphasised the important role of the International Court of Justice, as well as of other international tribunals, in the peaceful settlement of disputes. They called for a wider acceptance by States of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and for increased contributions to the Secretary General's trust fund to assist States in the settlement of disputes through the Court. It was suggested that the Organization should make more extensive use of the power to request advisory opinions, and that the Secretary General should be authorized to request such opinions. Some delegations also urged the Court to consider ways and means of conducting its work in a more efficient manner.

Some delegations expressed concern that there had been no follow-up on the proposals made in the 2004 Report of the Secretary-General on "The Rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict situations" (S/2004/616), in particular with a view to secure adequate resources for post-conflict rule of law activities. Reference was made to the requests of the Security Council in this regard.

Some delegations further urged the Secretary General to create a dedicated Rule of Law Assistance Unit, as suggested in the 2005 World Summit Outcome document. According to them, this unit should be established at an adequately high level in the Secretariat, taking into account the central role and function of the Office of Legal Affairs in this field. It could disseminate information regarding rule of law initiatives, coordinate technical assistance, identify new trends in international law and study areas for follow-up action by the Sixth Committee from the 2005 World Summit. It was stressed that the Unit should not duplicate work done elsewhere. In this regard, delegations looked forward to receiving the Secretariat's advice on the establishment, placement and mandate of the Unit.

Some delegations considered that, in this session, the Committee should focus on establishing modalities for the consideration of the item, with a view to examining it next year. While some delegations considered that the Committee should continue its comprehensive debate on the scope of this item, others supported the idea that one or two specific sub topics be chosen for discussion in the following session. Some delegations proposed, in particular, that the Committee deal with the areas of international criminal justice, the coordination of technical assistance for the rule of law or the role of the International Court of Justice.

It was proposed that a limited, well-targeted and subject-related report on the chosen topics be requested from the Secretary General to serve as a basis for next year's debate. Another proposal was that the report requested from the Secretary General be purely factual and include a review of the rule of law capacities of the United Nations. Some delegations, however, were of the view that such a request would be premature, given that the Committee had not yet thoroughly discussed the item. It was also suggested that an ad hoc committee or a working group be established to continue consideration of the item. A view was expressed that a conference of academics, practitioners and experts could be organized under the auspices of the United Nations to discuss the rule of law, as was done during the decade of international law.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 22nd (, , , , , ) meeting, on 16 November, the Chairman, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled "The rule of law at the national and international levels" (A/C.6/61/L.18). The Secretary of the Sixth Committee made a statement regarding the financial implications of the draft resolution (see A/C.6/61/SR. 22).

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.18, as orally revised, without a vote. The representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic and Japan spoke in explanation of position after the adoption of the draft resolution (see A/C.6/61/SR.22). The representative of Uruguay made a statement concerning linguistic changes to be made to the Spanish text of the draft resolution (see A/C.6/61/SR.22).

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of the agenda item 80.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2007)

Measures to eliminate international terrorism

Background (Source: A/61/100)

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-ninth sessions (resolutions 52/164, 52/165, 53/108, 54/110, 55/158, 56/88, 57/27, 58/81 and 59/46).

At its session, the General Assembly welcomed the adoption and opening for signature of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism; noted the progress attained in the elaboration of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism during the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee established by Assembly resolution 51/210 and the Working Group of the Sixth Committee established pursuant to Assembly resolution 59/46, and welcomed continuing efforts to that end; decided that the Ad Hoc Committee should, on an expedited basis, continue to elaborate the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, and should continue to discuss the item included in its agenda by Assembly resolution 54/110 concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations; decided also that the Ad Hoc Committee should meet from 27 February to 3 March 2006 in order to fulfil that mandate; and welcomed any update by the Secretary-General of the comprehensive inventory of the response of the Secretariat to terrorism as part of his report on measures to eliminate international terrorism (resolution 60/43).

Consideration at the Sixty-first session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 2nd (, , , , , ), 3rd (, , , , , ), 4th (, , , , , ), 5th (, , , , , ), 7th (, , , , , ), 21st (, , , , , ) and 23rd (, , , , , ) meetings, on 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 October and on 9 and 21 November 2006. At the 2nd (, , , , , ) meeting, on 11 October 2006, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 51/210 introduced the report of the Ad Hoc Committee (A/61/37).

At its 7th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 17 October 2006, the Sixth Committee, decided to establish a Working Group to continue to carry out the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee as contained General Assembly resolution 60/43 of 8 December 2006. At the same meeting, the Committee re-elected Rohan Perera (Sri Lanka) as the Chairman of the Working Group (A/C.6/61/SR.7). The Working Group held one meeting, on 3 November. At the 21st (, , , , , ) meeting, on 9 November, the Chairman of the Working Group gave an oral report on the meeting of the Working Group and on results of his bilateral contacts with delegations.

Statements were made by the representatives of the United Arab Emirates, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Palau, Liechtenstein, the Sudan, Qatar, Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (on behalf of Caribbean Community), Algeria, Tunisia, Colombia, Kuwait, Vietnam (on behalf of ASEAN countries), the United States, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Myanmar, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Nigeria, Togo, San Marino, Afghanistan, Jamaica, Norway, Ukraine (on behalf of the GUAM), Mozambique, Mongolia, Lebanon, Mali, Armenia, Uganda, Singapore, the Niger, Cuba, Sierra Leone, the Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Australia (on behalf of CANZ), Belarus, Bahrain, Switzerland, Burkina Faso, Guyana (on behalf of the Rio Group), Ethiopia, Ghana, Iraq, Malaysia, Egypt, Angola, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan (on behalf of the Shangaii Cooperation Organisation), Japan, the United Republic of Tanzania, China, the Gambia (on behalf of the Group of African States), Iceland, Cambodia, Zambia, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Morocco, Nepal, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, the Syrian Arab Republic and Azerbaijan (on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference). The representative of the observer delegation of the Holy See also made a statement.

Delegations reiterated their unequivocal and strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, by whomsoever, wherever and for whatever purposes committed. The respect for the rule of law, in particular international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugees law, in the fight against terrorism was emphasized. Some delegations stressed the fact that there was no link between terrorism and particular religion, culture or society, and that underlying causes of terrorism should also be addressed. Several delegations emphasized the necessity for States to ratify and implement the various existing international conventions against terrorism and recalled various initiatives undertaken on national and regional basis as part of the global fight against terrorism.

The important role of the Security Council in the fight against terrorism was underlined. It was pointed out that the Council resolutions on counter-terrorism added to the legal regime on fight against terrorism, that they should be fully implemented and that States must cooperate with the Council committees that deal with counter-terrorism The importance of prohibition by law of the incitement to terrorism was underlined and the Member States were urged to match their national legislation with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1624. Several delegations commended the work of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in the fight against terrorism and especially with regard to the technical assistance provided to Member States.

Concerning the draft comprehensive convention, delegations called for its early conclusion, building upon the momentum of the adoption of the Strategy. Although disappointment was expressed at the lack of recent progress in the negotiations, it was reiterated that the outstanding issues were not insurmountable.

Some delegations expressed the view that the draft convention should contain a universally accepted definition of terrorism, which would differentiate it from the legitimate right of peoples for self-determination. A suggestion was made that the formulation contained in paragraph 81 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome document may provide a basis for a consensus solution in this regard. Others supported the elements of a definition presented by the Secretary-General. Some delegations continued to express support for the former Coordinator's text. Differing views were also expressed with the regard to the scope of the exclusion for the acts of armed forces. A view was expressed that the draft convention should be viewed as a functional criminal law instrument, and that any compromise text would not include an overarching definition of terrorism, a clear distinction between terrorism and the right to self-determination, or an explicit reference to State terrorism.

Delegations welcomed the adoption of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (A/RES/60/288) and called for its effective implementation. This important step reaffirmed the important role of the General Assembly in countering terrorism. Some delegations also welcomed the report of the Secretary-General "Uniting against terrorism: recommendations for a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy" (A/60/825) and noted the continuing value of some recommendations contained therein. Some delegations noted with approval certain elements of the Strategy, including references to conditions conducive to terrorism, General Assembly resolution 46/51 and the requirement that States refrain from participating in terrorist activities. However, it was regretted that the Strategy did not contain a definition of terrorism, to distinguish it from the right of self-determination. Other delegations welcomed, in particular, the unconditional affirmation that there exists no justification for terrorism.

Some delegations emphasized that the Strategy would have to be updated on a regular basis, and that the role of the General Assembly in this regard remained ongoing. It was noted that the Strategy represented a compromise text and could be further strengthened. A suggestion was made that an Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly be established to monitor implementation and that the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force report to the Generally Assembly on a yearly basis on the implementation of the Strategy. Some delegations expressed support for the institutionalization of the Task Force and emphasized the need to secure the necessary resources for it. A number of delegations called for assistance in national capacity building in the area of counter-terrorism.

Some delegations endorsed the recommendation contained in paragraph 91 of the Secretary-General's report on Measures to eliminate international terrorism (A/61/210 and Add.1 & 2), that the preparation of his report be limited to the information submitted by intergovernmental organizations and depositaries. Greater coordination between the Security Council and the General Assembly in the collection of data was called for in this regard.

Concerning the convening of a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations, divergent views were expressed. While some delegations supported the proposal, others pointed out that it should be convened only after the finalization of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism.

Supported was also expressed for the proposal by Saudi Arabia concerning the establishment of an international counter-terrorism center.

The Sixth Committee concluded its debate on agenda item 100.

Action taken at the 61st Session

At the 23rd (, , , , , ) meeting, on 21 November 2006, the representative of Canada introduced the bureau text of a draft resolution entitled "Measures to eliminate international terrorism" (A/C.6/61/L.17), which was orally revised and amended. At the same meeting, the Secretary of the Committee made a statement regarding the financial implications of the draft resolution.

Also at the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.17, as orally revised and amended, without a vote. The representatives of Iran (Islam Republic of), Algeria, Syria, Egypt, Cuba and Pakistan also spoke in explanation of position before taking action on the draft resolution and the representative of Tunisia spoke in explanation of position after taking action on the draft resolution.

The Sixth Committee thus concluded its consideration of the item.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2007)

Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly

Background (Source: A/C.6/61/L.19)

Under agenda item 110, "Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly", pursuant to paragraph 3 (b) of the annex to General Assembly resolution 58/316, each Main Committee shall adopt a provisional programme of work for the next session. Accordingly, the Bureau of the Sixth Committee prepared a provisional programme of work for the upcoming session of the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

The Committee considered item 110 at its 23rd (, , , , , ) meeting, on 21 November 2006. At the same meeting, the Committee considered and adopted draft decision A/C.6/61/L.19.

Administration of justice at the United Nations

Background (Source: A/61/460)

The item was included in the provisional agenda of the sixty-first session of the General Assembly pursuant to Assembly resolution 59/283 of 13 April 2005 and decision 60/551 B of 8 May 2006.

At its second plenary meeting on 13 September 2006, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the General Committee, decided to include the item in its agenda. The General Assembly also decided to allocate the item to the Fifth Committee for its consideration, and to the Sixth Committee for the purpose of considering the legal aspects, both institutional and procedural, of the matter.

Work undertaken at the 61st session:

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 5th (, , , , , ) and 22nd (, , , , , ) meetings, on 16 October and 16 November 2006.

At the 5th (, , , , , ) meeting, statements were made by the representatives of: Canada (also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand), the United States of America, South Africa (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China), the Russian Federation, Pakistan, Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic and Germany.

Delegations commended the Report of the Redesign Panel on the United Nations system of administration of justice and looked forward to the report of the Secretary General on these issues. The need to reform the United Nations system of administration of justice was generally recognized, although the view was also expressed that changes should be considered carefully and should enjoy wide support.

Delegations stressed the inefficiency of the current system, in particular its slowness, its complexity and its costs, and favoured the creation of a transparent, effective and timely system of administration of justice that would comply with internationally recognized standards of justice, thus ensuring the protection of employees' rights while enhancing accountability.

Delegations underlined the need to coordinate the work of the Fifth and Sixth Committees on the item.

It was also suggested that the Sixth Committee continue its consideration of the item during a resumed session in March 2007, after the publication of the Secretary General's report.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 22nd (, , , , , ) meeting, on 16 November 2006, the Chairman of the Sixth Committee read out a revised version of the draft decision entitled "Administration of Justice at the United Nations" (A/C.6/61/L.12).

The Secretary of the Sixth Committee made a statement on the financial implications of draft decision A/C.6/61/L.12.

Also at the 22nd (, , , , , ) meeting, the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic proposed an amendment to the draft decision.

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted without a vote draft decision A/C.6/61/L.12, as orally revised by the Chairman.

After the adoption of the draft decision, representatives of the United States of America and the Syrian Arab Republic made statements in explanation of position (A/C.6/61/SR.22).

The Committee thus completed, at this stage, its consideration of agenda item 128.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2007)

Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country

Background (Source: A/60/100)

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 session, the General Assembly requested the host country to continue to solve, through negotiations, problems that might arise and to take all measures necessary to prevent any interference with the functioning of missions; noted that the Committee would continue to review the implementation of the Parking Programme for Diplomatic Vehicles; requested the host country to consider removing the remaining travel restrictions on staff of certain missions and staff members of the Secretariat of certain nationalities; noted that a number of delegations had requested a shortening of the time frame applied by the host country for the issuance of entry visas to representatives of Member States; and requested the Secretary-General to remain actively engaged in all aspects of the relations of the United Nations with the host country (resolution 60/24).

Work undertaken at the 61st session:

The Committee considered the item at its 21st (, , , , , ) meeting, on 9 November 2006.

The Chairman of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country introduced the report of the Committee (A/61/26). Statements were made by the representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union; the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania; the candidate countries Turkey, Croatia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia; the EFTA countries Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova), India, Cuba and the United States of America.

Appreciation was expressed for the work and the report of the Host Country Committee as well as for the continued efforts 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 accord full facilities for the normal functioning of the missions accredited to the United Nations. Hope was expressed that various issues raised in the Committee would be resolved consistent with international law. With respect to the Parking Programme for Diplomatic Vehicles adopted in 2002, support was expressed for a review of its implementation. A reference was also made to instances of travel restrictions and delay in the issuance of entry visas.

The United States confirmed its commitment to fulfil its obligations under international law and highlighted, in particular, the success achieved in the implementation of the Parking Programme. It was also pointed out that restrictions on private non-official travel of members of certain missions did not violate international law and that the host country had modified or removed some restrictions.

The Committee concluded its debate on agenda item 148.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the same meeting, the representative of Cyprus, also on behalf of Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica and Côte d'Ivoire, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country" (A/C.6/61/L.11).

At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.11 without a vote.

The Committee thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 148.

This agenda item was subsequently considered at the session (2007)

Requests for observer status in the General Assembly

Background:

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

Work undertaken at the Sixtieth session:

The Committee considered agenda item 153 at its 5th (, , , , , ), 10th (, , , , , ) and 20th (, , , , , ) meetings, on 16 and 25 October and on 6 November 2006.

Observer status for the OPEC Fund for International Development in the General Assembly

Statements were made by the representatives of Saudi Arabia and Cuba.

The delegation of Saudi Arabia introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/61/L.3.

The delegation of Cuba expressed its support for the granting of observer status to the OPEC Fund for International Development in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 5th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 16 October, the representative of Saudi Arabia, also on behalf of Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Senegal, Sierra Leone, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Yemen, subsequently joined by Mali and Morocco, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Observer status for the OPEC Fund for International Development in the General Assembly" (A/C.6/61/L.3).

At the 10th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 25 October, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.3 without a vote.

Observer status for the Indian Ocean Commission in the General Assembly

The delegation of Mauritius made a statement and introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/61/L.2.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 5th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 16 October, the representative of Mauritius, also on behalf of the Comoros, France, Madagascar and Seychelles, subsequently joined by Bangladesh, Barbados, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Ireland, Liberia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nepal, the Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka and Swaziland, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Observer status for the Indian Ocean Commission in the General Assembly" (A/C.6/61/L.2).

At the 10th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 25 October, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.2 without a vote.

Observer status for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the General Assembly

Statements were made by the representatives of the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore and China.

The delegation of the Philippines introduced the draft resolution contained in document A/C.6/61/L.4.

The delegations of Indonesia, Singapore and China expressed their support for the granting of observer status to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the General Assembly.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee:

At the 5th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 16 October, the representative of the Philippines, also on behalf of Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, France, Indonesia, Japan, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and Viet Nam, subsequently joined by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Mauritius, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden, introduced a draft resolution entitled "Observer status for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the General Assembly" (A/C.6/61/L.4).

At the 10th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 25 October, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/61/L.4 without a vote.

At the 20th (, , , , , ) meeting, on 6 November, the Committee continued its consideration of agenda item 153.

The Chairman of the Committee spoke.

The Committee concluded its consideration of agenda item 153.

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

Copyright (c) 2006
United Nations