CYIL 2012

PETR VÁLEK CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ in international law.” – did not make it to the second version, due to opposition of one delegation. This fact clearly demonstrates the political limits for expert deliberations within the Sixth Committee which would be avoided in the ILC, where the expert criteria prevail over the political ones. At the third meeting of the Working Group, this informal paper was adopted. 85 It is composed of two parts called “Agreements on Methodology” and “Issues for Discussion”. While the first part sets a framework for the future, including a sentence that “the potential role of the International Law Commission will be considered when appropriate”, the second part contains a catalogue of points that may be discussed in the future (e.g., the role and purpose of universal jurisdiction, distinction from other related concepts, crimes under universal jurisdiction, etc.). 86 There is no doubt that the Informal Paper is a great achievement of the Costa Rican Chairman of the Working Group, who described it in his oral report to the Sixth Committee “as a methodological and thematic framework for structuring, from now on, the substantive discussions of the Working Group”. 87 Nevertheless, this document has no legal status; therefore, it depends on the States participating in the Working Group next fall to what extent it will be taken into account. From this point of view, the resolution on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, coordinated by the Legal Advisor of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is the more important document. At the informal consultations on the draft resolution, the delegations dealt only with the next procedural steps on this issue. The final outcome is that the Sixth Committee will continue its consideration of this item at the 67 th session of the GA, but “without prejudice to the consideration of this topic and related issues in other forums of the United Nations”. 88 As such, possible future involvement of the ILC is not excluded, which is the most the States preferring this option could have achieved. The Working Group will also be established again and the Secretary-General will submit another report on this item based on the information and submission of States. 89 In this context, it may be concluded that, during the 66 th session of the GA, the Sixth Committee has not made much progress on this issue and that, at the 67 th session, the time will be ripe for referring this matter to the ILC. At the same time, it would not be correct to qualify the consideration of this item by the Sixth Committee as “business as usual”. The reason for this assertion is a lively international law debate within the Working Group, which is hardly a rule in the Sixth Committee where statements are formally read most of the time and contentious debates evolve mostly along procedural issues.

85 Informal paper of the Working Group, dated October 21, 2011, UN Doc. A/C.6/66/WG.3/1. 86 Id. 87 The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, Oral report of the Chairman of the

Working Group presented to the Sixth Committee on November 9, 2011, p. 3. 88 Resolution of the GA No. 66/103 of December 9, 2011, UN Doc. A/RES/66/103. 89 Id.

312