CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ ACTIVITIES OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY … the General Assembly) “was not able to agree on an ambitious and structured approach for (…) future deliberations on the recommendation of the ILC to elaborate a convention” 9 . In 2020 the Sixth Committee considered the separate agenda item entitled “Crimes against humanity” for the first time. During its consideration, delegations generally noted that crimes against humanity were a threat to international peace and security, many delegations further stressed the need to prevent the commission of such crimes and to hold perpetrators accountable. A number of delegations, including the Czech Republic, expressed their support for the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles, either on a diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries or by a General Assembly, since the crimes against humanity are the only crimes under international law without a dedicated convention on their prevention and punishment and this situation represents a gap ( lacuna legis ) in international treaty law. On the other hand, some delegations considered elaboration of a convention premature and requested additional time to study the draft articles. After some informal consultations the Sixth Committee (and then the General Assembly) adopted a resolution in which it once again took note of the draft articles. Consideration during the 76 th session For the 76 th session of the General Assembly in 2021, the EU Members and some other like-minded States (namely for example Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Mexico) agreed that a meaningful progress towards elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles would be their priority. A core-group of like-minded States evolved. As concerns the EU, the core group included the Czech Republic, Portugal, Slovakia and the Legal Adviser of the Delegation of the EU to the United Nations. Taking into account the concerns expressed by some delegations about the elaboration of a convention being premature and about need to further discuss the draft articles, the like-minded delegations would propose establishment of an ad hoc committee that would meet outside the busy period of the Sixth Committee’s session (e. g. in February, when Legal Advisers are generally less busy than during autumn). Such a committee would be open to participation by the whole UN membership. The ad hoc committee would be mandated with substantive discussion on the content of the draft articles. Such body would need clear mandate, timeline for its discussion and an “exit strategy”. Establishing an “open-ended” structure without a clear mandate was considered as unacceptable for the like-minded delegations. An ad hoc committee was not the only option for a forum dedicated to substantive discussion on the draft articles. Another option was establishment of the working group of the Sixth Committee 10 , or mere invitation by the General Assembly for informal intersessional negotiations. The ad hoc committee was, however, evaluated as the most suitable option for the purpose. Unlike a working group of the Sixth Committee, the ad hoc committee would be a subsidiary body of the General Assembly (i.e., a distinct body from the Sixth 9 Explanation of Position after adoption delivered by the representative of Austria on behalf of a group of States (available here: https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/74/pdfs/statements/ilc/austria_eop.pdf ). 10 The Sixth Committee has established number of working groups. For example, during the 77 th session of the General Assembly, it is expected that the Committee will establish working groups under following agenda items: (1) Measures to eliminate international terrorism, (2) The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, (3) Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on missions, (4) Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.

389