CYIL 2012

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE DURING THE 66 TH SESSION … Succession of States have already become a “soft law”, after they had been annexed to the resolution 55/153 in 2000. I recalled that the Articles and commentaries thereto have provided a useful guidance to States and various international bodies which were confronted with problems of nationality and statelessness in situations resulting from succession of States. One such example is the Convention of the Council of Europe on Avoidance of Statelessness in Relation to State Succession, adopted on May 19, 2006 (in force from May 1, 2009), and based on relevant provisions of the Articles. As pointed out by some States in the general debate and written comments, I stressed that their purpose was already achieved and that the Articles play the envisaged role in their current form. While the first draft received solid support across the UN regional groups, the States that preferred the form of a declaration of the GA or a convention wanted to pursue the first above-stated option, i.e., to do a technical revision of the last resolution and put this item back on the agenda of the GA again in a couple years. I tried to convince the legal advisers in favor of a declaration by the prevailing practice of the GA that, in the last decade, used to take note of the ILC draft articles and annex them to its resolution. In fact, no declaration of the GA based on the ILC draft articles has been approved since the ILC recommended this in 1999. Furthermore, I expressed the view that the current form of the Articles – an annex to the GA resolution – has the same legal effects as if they were adopted in the form of a declaration. In discussion with the States seeking a convention, I recalled that this idea has not gained sufficient support during the twelve years that have elapsed since the completion of work of the ILC. I also mentioned the sad story of the Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, currently with just 13 States Parties. Nevertheless, these States were not ready to accept my proposal, so I entered into bilateral negotiations with them. Here I should add that the Sixth Committee traditionally decides by consensus, thus there is no voting. The consensus method makes the negotiations sometimes quite complex. The outcome of my negotiations was, among other minor changes, a revised wording of operative paragraph 4 which read as follows: the GA “Decides that, upon request of any State, it will revert to the question of nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States at an appropriate time, in the light of the development of State practice in these matters.” The key part of the new text was “upon request of any State”, which reflected the legal framework within which the GA operates. Specifically, according to the Rules of Procedure of the GA, 44 adopted under Article 21 of the UN Charter, any Member of the UN has the right to propose a new item to its agenda. This compromise solution was acceptable both for the States that wanted to conclude this item in the Sixth Committee and the States in favor of a declaration or a convention on this subject. To the latter, the operative paragraph 4 provided a reassurance that when the time is ripe, they can again open this question in the Sixth Committee. At the same time, it seems that this will not happen anytime 44 Rules of Procedure of the GA, Rule 13(e), UN Doc. A/520/Rev.17.

301