CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

MAREK ZUKAL – JAN MAIS CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ abuse or misuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction.” This paragraph was supposed to be the only “new language” in the resolution, which was, in its rest a technical rollover of the last year’s resolution 21 . If such a proposal would have passed, this alteration to the 2020 resolution would only represent a political statement without any reasonable progress to the matter that should be dealt entirely within a legal sphere. In reaction to Sierra Leone’s and Rwanda’s proposal, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria submitted, in close cooperation, their own proposal, that would counter-balance the text: “[the General Assembly takes not of the diversity of views (…), including concerns (…)]as well as the views that these concerns might be alleviated by a legal analysis of universal jurisdiction by the International Law Commission” . The referral to the ILC is in accordance with the long standing position of the Czech Republic. As the Czech Republic stated during the initial debate in the Sixth Committee, defining the boundaries of universal jurisdiction “is purely legal question and should not be burdened by political considerations. Such considerations are, unfortunately, unavoidable within the Sixth Committee”. 22 Consequently, the counter-proposal would neutralise the negative tone of the original proposal by Sierra Leone and Rwanda and could provide a gradual path toward the referral of the agenda item to the ILC. Switzerland has shortly after joined the initiative of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria, and the counter-proposal was presented during the informal consultations. However, the new text was unacceptable not only for Sierra Leone, Rwanda or Russia, but also for the United States, the United Kingdom or Australia and some others, who opposed referral to the ILC at this stage. Nevertheless, since the original proposal by Sierra Leone and Rwanda was submitted relatively late during the process of informal consultations, the hope for a more in-depth discussion during the last informal sessions was rather unrealistic. Therefore, due to insufficient time to reach a necessary consensus on either of the two proposals, the resolution was adopted only with technical updates (technical rollover). Consequently, the endeavour to gradually approach the referral to the ILC may continue during the following sessions of the Sixth Committee. It is also important to note, that the ILC has the issue of universal jurisdiction on its long-term programme of work. It may be the case that the ILC decides to move the topic to the current program of work even without a resolution of the General Assembly inviting it to do so. United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law Political considerations also affected the standard manner of usually rather uncontroversial and technical consideration of the agenda item entitled “Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law”. Here, the need of consensus-based decision allowed one State to obstruct the adoption of resolution and achieve alteration of the text that was allegedly controversial for that State. Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law contributes to the development of a better understanding of international 21 Resolution No. A/RES/75/142 adopted by the General Assembly on December 15, 2020. 22 Statement by Mr. Marek Zukal, delivered on behalf of the Czech Republic on October 21, 2021 (available here: https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/76/pdfs/statements/universal_jurisdiction/14mtg_czechrep.pdf ).

394