CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ ACTIVITIES OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY … numerous other States throughout the world. When the universal jurisdiction is invoked, the State practice differs as there is no general instrument of international law governing its use and application. Concerns such as alleged “ad hoc and arbitrary application [of the universal jurisdiction], particularly towards African leaders” 18 , led to the request by Tanzania, on behalf of the Group of African States, to include the item to the Sixth Committee’s agenda during the 64 th session in 2009. 19 Consequently, the agenda item entitled “ The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction” has been considered since then, on an annual basis, with the working group planned for the 77 th session. Subsequently, the aim of the debate in the Sixth Committee is to examine the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction with a focus on relevant State practice and applicable international law norms. In order to achieve this goal, certain States, including the Czech Republic, have repeatedly proposed that the subject be referred to the International Law Commission to prepare a study on this issue. As an independent expert body, the ILC could provide States with a thorough legal analysis of disputed aspects of universal jurisdiction that would give States a clear legal basis and enable them to make progress in their future discussions on these aspects. Nevertheless, not all Member States agree with such a proposal, arguing that the ILC’s study would be, in the current state of affairs, premature and counterproductive. Consideration during the 76 th session During the 76 th session of the General Assembly, numerous delegations in the Sixth Committee’s debate agreed that universal jurisdiction was an important, well-established principle of international law aimed at combating impunity. Nevertheless, they, at the same time, pointed out that the exercise of universal jurisdiction must remain an exception from a general rule, which derives the criminal jurisdiction from territoriality and personality. A significant part of States remarked that there was a continuing disagreement and ambiguity with regard to the key issues of the principle that had to be sorted out first. Member States defending the principle, among which the Czech Republic belongs, emphasized its role as a necessary safeguard against impunity, where no general mechanism is implemented. Moreover, they highlighted its increasing acceptance among the international community and growing State practice 20 . On the other hand, not all interventions were supportive of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Besides the “usual suspects” as Russia or Syria, also Iran, representing the Non-Aligned Movement, stressed the need to respect the immunities of Heads of State and other officials. Numerous States expressed their concerns about the alleged politically motivated abuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Such concern of a group of States also led to a proposal from Sierra Leone and Rwanda, during the informal consultations on a draft resolution, to include a paragraph to the resolution according to which the General Assembly “takes note of the diversity of views expressed by States in the Sixth Committee, (…) including concerns expressed in relation to the 18 UN Document No. A/63/237/Rev.1 (available here: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ N09/421/25/PDF-/N0942125.pdf?OpenElement). 19 Ibid. 20 For example, recent judgement of German Higher Regional Court of Koblenz “Federal Prosecutor’s Office v. Anwar R.” from 2022 convicting two high Syrian government officials for crimes against humanity committed in Syria.

393