CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

MAREK ZUKAL – ANNA MATOUŠKOVÁ CYIL 14 (2023) Sixth Committee, as there is a lot of Permanent Missions which do not have enough resources to hold such a thorough discussion during this busy period” 13 . Therefore, as in the previous year, one of the most frequently proposed options in the debate was the establishment of an ad hoc committee that would meet during the intersessional period. For some, however, the legal gap does not exist, as crimes against humanity are criminalized in national jurisdictions. These States see any structured way forward as premature. China, for example, stated that only a step-by-step examination of the possibility of drafting a convention, without a predetermined timeframe and expected outcome, would be acceptable. By the end of the debate, the draft resolution prepared by Mexico (and others) had 19 co-sponsors. Some delegations, however, saw the initiation of a country-led process as contrary to the established practice of the Sixth Committee (Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Syria and others), or even as a “threat to the practice of the Sixth Committee” or as “gross violations of procedure that could have irreversible consequences” . Others countered these arguments, stressing that the Sixth Committee could not become hostage to its own procedural practices. This argument certainly also applies to the practice of consensus-based decision-making. Some delegations pointed out that a minority of States used consensus to block progress on certain agenda items and prevent the Sixth Committee from fulfilling its functions. It was largely Mexico’s determination to allow a vote on the draft resolution, breaking with the practice of consensus-based decision-making, if necessary, that put strong pressure on critical delegations to engage constructively. The support of co-sponsors, their coordinated approach and outreach to undecided delegations also proved crucial. Outcome of the consideration during the 77 th session For past three consecutive years, the work of the Sixth Committee had resulted in a technical rollover of the original resolution adopted in 2019. The pressure from like minded delegations to finally abandon this trend was felt throughout the session. Thanks to the relatively bold approach of the co-facilitators and the unity of like-minded States, some progress was made and the resolution 14 adopted by the Sixth Committee, and consequently by the General Assembly, set out concrete steps to be taken on this issue in the future. However, given the counter-pressure from critical delegations, the adopted resolution was far from the text that the like-minded countries, including EU Member States, decided to co-sponsor at the beginning of the process. The co-facilitators emphasized the need to give States the opportunity to engage substantively on the content of the CAH, within a clear and dedicated framework. The zero-draft of the resolution proposed that this should be through the establishment of an ad hoc committee in 2023, open to all States, to “ examine and exchange substantive views on the Draft Articles” , and to “ consider further the recommendation of the ILC for the elaboration of a convention”, with a view to a decision by the General Assembly on this matter at a later stage. In their background note, the co-facilitators stated that this should be without prejudice to

13 Statement by the representative of the Czech Republic. Available here: https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/77/pdfs/ statements/cah/10mtg_czech.pdf. 14 Resolution of the General Assembly A/RES/77/249, adopted on 9 January 2023. Available here: https:// documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N23/004/85/PDF/N2300485.pdf?OpenElement.

456