CYIL 2012

PETR VÁLEK CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ included them as annexes. The resolution on the ILC Report itself, coordinated by the Guatemalan Legal Adviser, was based mainly on the previous resolution on this item. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that, according to this resolution, the GA “invited the International Law Commission to continue to give priority to, and work towards the conclusion of, the topics “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction” and “The obligation to extradite or prosecute ( aut dedere aut judicare )”. 95 This paragraph contains even stronger language than a year before, as the ILC has made only little progress on these two topics. It is a challenge for the new ILC members to finally conclude them. In terms of time spent by the Legal Advisers of the UN Missions at various agenda items of the Sixth Committee, the most difficult one was probably “The Rule of Law at the National and International Levels”. Under normal circumstances, the draft resolution on this item would be negotiated relatively fast. This time, however, the resolution was supposed to set the modalities for the high-level meeting of the GA on this issue on September 24, 2012, right before the general debate. This demanding task was accomplished by the Legal Advisors of Liechtenstein and Mexico, as these two States put this item on the agenda of the GA in 2006. 96 During the informal consultations, the most contentious question among the Non-Aligned Movement (hereinafter the “NAM”), EU, Russia, the United States, Switzerland and others was the selection of subtopics for possible roundtables at this high-level meeting. This situation was caused by different understandings of the term of “rule of law” across the UN membership. At the end, the solution was found by giving up on the idea of roundtables and having a plenary meeting only. A similar problem was the list of speakers for this one-day event – the final outcome can be found in the relevant resolution. 97 The high-level meeting is supposed to result in “a concise outcome document” 98 that will be negotiated prior to this meeting in spring and summer 2012. This instrument may become either a new impulse for the UN in the area of rule of law, or just another political paper that will be forgotten right after the high-level meeting is over. The item of “Administration of Justice at the United Nations” is closely linked with the rule of law, in this case within the UN system. Having immunity from local jurisdictions, the UN cannot be sued by its staff before national courts and is equipped, therefore, with its own internal justice system. In 2007, a new system of administration of justice was established, including the UN Dispute Tribunal and the UN Appeals Tribunal 99 , which have been operational since July 1, 2009. During the 66 th session of the GA, the Sixth Committee had to address the question of 95 Resolution of the GA No. 66/98 of December 9, 2011, UN Doc. A/RES/66/98, operative para. 8. 96 Request for the inclusion of an item in the provisional agenda of the sixty-first session The rule of law at the national and international levels, Letter dated 11 May 2006 from the Permanent Representatives of Liechtenstein and Mexico to the UN addressed to the SG, UN Doc. A/61/142. 97 Resolution of the GA No. 66/102 of December 9, 2011, UN Doc. A/RES/66/102, operative para. 15. 98 Id. , operative para. 15. 99 Resolution of the GA No. 62/228 of December 22, 2007, UN Doc. A/RES/62/228.

314