CYIL 2012

PETR VÁLEK CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ including the Czech Republic that, similarly to Hungary, believed that the purpose of these Articles was achieved by the adoption of GA resolution 55/153 in 2000. 36 With these developments in mind, I took over the responsibility for coordinating the draft resolution. It was clear from the beginning that I had two options for how to prepare this draft. The first option was that I could do a mere technical revision of the last resolution on this item adopted in 2008 37 and simply include it in the agenda of the GA in three or four years, which has already been done two times before. The second option was to break this cycle and conclude this item, at least for some time. I had no doubt that the first option would have been much easier to pursue; nevertheless, the second option was worth trying, given the time the Sixth Committee spent on this issue since 2000, without taking a decision on the form of these Articles. Furthermore, there has already been some precedent for the second option. In 1967, the GA recommended the ILC to study the topic of most-favoured-nation clauses in the law of treaties. 38 The ILC started to work on this matter and, in 1978, adopted the Draft Articles on Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses 39 and recommended to States to conclude a convention on the subject. 40 Subsequently, the GA dealt with this item six times without reaching any conclusion. In 1991, the GA finally managed to close this chapter by adopting a decision (not a resolution), on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, to bring these Draft Articles to the attention of States and interested international organizations “for their consideration in such cases and to the extent as they deem appropriate”. 41 The ILC, however, included this item into its program of work again in 2008 42 and the GA took note of this by its resolution. 43 This case proved that there was some flexibility in the Sixth Committee in dropping an agenda item and coming back to it, should there be a renewed interest of States. The first draft of “my resolution” was prepared on the basis of the above-stated 2008 resolution, but it contained a new operative paragraph 4 according to which the GA would decide that “it will revert to the question of nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States, with the aim of examining the subject, including the question of the form that might be given to the articles, at an appropriate time, in the light of the development of State practice in these matters.” This proposal was circulated to all Member States and in order to hear their views, I organized the informal consultations on this draft. At these consultations, I made the point that the Articles on the Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to the 36 Note by the Secretariat, Nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States, UN Doc. A/66/178 and UN Doc. A/66/178/Add.1. The previous Note by the Secretariat on this issue is UN Doc. A/63/113. 37 Resolution of the GA No. 63/118 of December 11, 2008, UN Doc. A/RES/63/118. 38 Resolution of the GA No. 2272 (XXII) of December 1, 1967. 39 Yearbook of the ILC, 1978, Vol. II (Part Two), p. 8-73. 40 Id. , para. 73. 41 The GA Decision 46/416 of December 9, 1991. 42 Report of the ILC, 60th Session, 2008, UN Doc. A/63/10, p. 354, 355, paras. 351, 352. 43 Resolution of the GA No. 63/123 of December 11, 2008, UN Doc. A/RES/63/123.

300