CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) ACTIVITIES OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY … instead of postponing the consideration of the agenda item, which would have been preferred by some EU Member States and some others. 12 Consideration during the 77 th session During the 77 th session of the General Assembly, taking a specific action to enhance the legal framework of prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity was a priority for a number of delegations, including all EU Member States. In order to achieve a meaningful progress, the like-minded delegations started to discuss their strategy in early 2022 and identified two main options with regard to negotiation strategy: (1) to continue negotiations as in previous years, or (2) to initiate a so-called country-led process. Agenda items considered by the Sixth Committee are either coordinated by Bureau appointed facilitators, who coordinate on behalf of the Bureau, or by the respective Member States in the so-called country-led process. While the country-led process is less common, it is not unknown to the Sixth Committee; some agenda items are traditionally coordinated by the respective Member States. For example, resolutions on the UNCITRAL are traditionally coordinated by Austria, resolutions on Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions are traditionally coordinated by Sweden and resolutions on the report of the Host Country Committee by Cyprus. The whole process of coordination of resolutions is not formally regulated, the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly do not address it at all. The only source of regulation is tradition and practice. The practical difference between the two processes is the extent to which the coordinator must exercise restraint. Whereas a Bureau appointed facilitator must be much more cautious and as neutral as possible, in the country led process the coordinator is not acting on behalf of the Bureau and can therefore be less neutral, although he should still try to achieve consensus. As the negotiations led by the Bureau-appointed facilitators did not lead to a meaningful progress during the 76 th session of the General Assembly, the majority of like-minded States felt that a country-led process should be explored. In the end, Mexico, a strong supporter of progress on this issue, decided to initiate such a process by introducing a draft resolution even before the start of the Committee, rather than waiting for the Bureau to appoint facilitators. Mexico did so as the leader of a group of States that also included Bangladesh, Colombia, Costa Rica, Gambia, Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. This draft resolution envisaged the establishment of an ad hoc committee to consider the CAH. The general interest in the topic seemed to have increased among the UN membership as more delegations (72) delivered their statements in the Committee compared to the 76 th session (64). The central question of the debate was whether there was a need to elaborate a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. In general, States considered the CAH to be a solid basis for possible future negotiations of a convention and appreciated the work of the ILC. The vast majority of States see the need to fill the legal gap when it comes to crimes against humanity and it was repeatedly stated that the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity deserve to be covered by a separate convention just as the crime of genocide and war crimes. These like-minded States reiterated their call for a structured approach that would allow for a substantive discussion of the CAH. The Czech Republic, for example, expressed the view that “this cannot be done during the session of the 12 For detailed overview of the consideration of this agenda item during the 76 th session see ZUKAL, Marek and Jan MAIS, op. cit., p. 388.

455