CYIL 2012

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE DURING THE 66 TH SESSION … 2007 proposal. Nevertheless, it was clear that no progress in the negotiations has been made. In a subsequent debate, the members of the Sixth Committee discussed the next steps and the possible suspension of the negotiating process for some time. Many States questioned whether the current working methods were non-transparent and called for a change. This is understandable, as the bilateral consultations have not so far delivered any tangible results. The future direction regarding the CCIT became central in the negotiations on the draft resolution on the item Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, which was coordinated by Mr. Keith Morrill, the Canadian Legal Adviser. The main question was whether to suspend the next spring session of the Ad Hoc Committee. Due to the current state of negotiations on the CCIT, the EU Members States and the United States did not see much sense in having this meeting, as it would bring – most likely – only repetition of previously expressed positions by all major players. Guatemala, India and Russia, however, saw a danger in breaking these negotiations and wanted to keep the traditional spring session of the Sixth Committee. At the end, the former view prevailed, so the discussions on the draft CCIT will continue in the Sixth Committee during the 67 th session of the GA. 74 Therefore, the only conclusion of this Committee regarding the item Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism that cannot be qualified as “business as usual”, Under universal jurisdiction or the principle of universality, “any State is empowered to bring to trial persons accused of international crimes, regardless of the place of commission of the crime, or the nationality of the author or of the victim”. 75 The Sixth Committee is dealing with this issue under the title “The Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction”. Unlike the previous two items – that have been on the agenda of the Sixth Committee for quite some time – this topic is relatively new. The GA included this issue into the agenda for its 64 th session on the request of Tanzania 76 in 2009, 77 following the issuance of arrest warrants against some African State officials by certain European States on the basis of universal jurisdiction. The members of the African Union (hereinafter the “AU”) were convinced that some of their leaders were unfairly targeted by the European judges and prosecutors for political reasons and partly because of their ignorance of the facts in Africa. Therefore, in their view, the principle of universal jurisdiction has is the elimination of the Ad Hoc Committee’s spring session. 4. The Attempts to Clarify Universal Jurisdiction

74 Resolution of the GA No. 66/105 of December 9, 2011, UN Doc. A/RES/66/105. 75 A. Cassese, International Criminal Law, 2003, p. 284.

76 Request for the inclusion of an additional item in the agenda of the sixty-third session, The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, Letter dated 29 June 2009 from the Permanent Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania to the UN addressed to the SG, UN Doc. No. A/63/237/Rev.1. 77 Decision of the GA No. 63/568 of September 14, 2009.

309