CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

MAREK ZUKAL – JAN MAIS CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ Explanation of position was also delivered by the EU Presidency (Slovenia) on behalf of all EU Member States (some other States aligned itself with this explanation). The EU expressed its view that “opposition to creating a dedicated platform to allow time and space to discuss the issues of substance on the ILC draft articles goes against the spirit of the United Nations. It is truly incomprehensible that consensus is being used to prevent the opening of a formal, structured, inclusive dialogue, which is meant to further the understanding of the Member States’ positions and iron out differences” 15 . The level of unwillingness of some delegations to enable meaningful substantive discussion on the draft articles was hard to understand. It should be stressed that the progress-seeking delegations did not intend to start negotiations on the convention itself, the goal was only to establish a format within which further discussion on the substance could take place. Although the plenary of the Sixth Committee holds debate on this agenda item, this debate is rather formal and does not allow the discussion to be as interactive as necessary. Also, it is not within the limited capacities of small delegations (including the Czech one) to fully focus on a substantive debate during the busy autumn period of the Sixth Committee’s session. The goal was therefore to create time and space for such discussion in a time when delegations actually would be able to follow such discussions, preferably in the first six months of a year. Based on views of delegations expressed within this potential discussion, it would only be decided whether to proceed further towards the elaboration of the convention itself, or not. The like-minded progress-seeking delegations will try again to achieve meaningful progress under the agenda item Crimes against humanity during the 77 th session of the General Assembly in 2022. Until then it should be probably considered, what strategy to follow in order to achieve a different result than during the 76 th session. It is obvious that in order to achieve a better outcome on this topic, a different strategy must be applied during negotiations next time. Some delegations are even willing to consider breaking the tradition of consensus-based decision making and recure to voting. The scope and application of principle of universal jurisdiction Another example of politicization of the work of the Sixth Committee is the debate and informal consultations on the principle of universal jurisdiction. The Czech Republic was actively involved in the negotiations of the draft resolution on this issue. As will be clear from the following text, not every departure from the status quo necessarily leads to a desirable progress. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, any State may exercise jurisdiction over a crime solely because of its nature, regardless of the link to the nationality or territoriality. 16 To prevent its extensive exercise, the universal jurisdiction should relate only to the most serious crimes and be applied only as a means of last resort. Nevertheless, even though the principle is firmly embedded in the Czech national legislation 17 , it is not the case in 15 Explanation of Position delivered by the representative of Slovenia, on behalf of the European Union ant its Member States and certain other States, on November 18, 2021 (available here: https://www.un.org/en/ga/ sixth/76/pdfs/statements/cah/29mtg_eu.pdf ). 16 MAY, L. and HOSKINS. Z. International criminal law and philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-511-64171-8, p. 17. 17 Section 7, subsection 1, of the Act No. 40/2009 Sb. (of the Official Gazette of the Czech Republic), Criminal Code, as amended.

392