CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

PAVEL ŠTURMA the creation of rights and the existence of rights’. 12 However, there are different views as whether it should be referred to “principle” or “presumption” of continuity and how to address various scenarios relating to statehood in the context of the sea-level rise. During the ensuing debate, agreement was expressed with the assessment that the process was likely to be gradual and that a distinction could be drawn between the situations of partial and total submergence of the land surface. The Study Group also considered Part Two of the additional paper, entitled ‘Protection of persons affected by sea-level rise’, presented by the co-chair of the SG Ms. P. Galvão Teles who explained that the additional paper examined selected developments in state practice and in the practice of international organizations, as well as the relevant legal issues identified in the second issues paper that could form possible elements for legal protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. Members of the Study Group agreed with the conclusion contained in the additional paper that the current international legal frameworks that were potentially applicable to the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise were fragmented and mostly not specific to sea-level rise. It was further noted that sea-level rise presented new challenges that the current legal frameworks were not fully equipped to resolve. The absence of specialized protection mechanisms within international law for persons internally displaced due to sea level rise or environmental migrants was emphasized. The Study Group then discussed 12 possible elements for legal protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. In connection with the Study Group’s future work and working methods, a concern was expressed that the scope of the subtopics was too broad, and it was suggested that the number of questions under examination be reduced. In the end, the Co-Chair reiterated that a joint final report on the topic as a whole, consolidating the work undertaken so far on the three subtopics, with a set of conclusions, would be submitted by the Co-Chairs for consideration of the Study Group at the Commission’s next session in 2025. 2.3 Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties Regarding this topic, the Commission had before it the second report of Special Rapporteur August Reinisch. 13 The report explains the change of the title of the present topic (deleting “international” before disputes). It reflects the differentiation between international and non-international disputes and the intention to also include disputes of international organizations with private persons. The second report focuses on international disputes. Next, the report analyses the practice of international disputes to which international organizations are parties, with the presentation of various means of peaceful settlement of disputes. In the end of the report, the Special Rapporteur proposed draft guidelines 3 to 6. Following the debate in plenary and the Drafting Committee, the Commission provisionally adopted draft guidelines 3 that defines the scope of Part Two, 14 draft guideline 4 (Resort to means of dispute settlement) 15 and draft guideline 5 (Accessibility of means of 12 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, U.S.A.) , Award, 4 April 1928, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. II, p. 845. 13 See UN doc. A/CN.4/766 (2024). 14 A/CN.4/L.998 (2024), p. 1: ‘This Part addresses disputes between international organizations as well as disputes between international organizations and States.’ 15 Ibid ., p. 1: ‘Disputes between international organizations or between international organizations and States should be settled in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation by the means of dispute settlement referred to in draft guideline 2, subparagraph c , that may be appropriate to the circumstances and the nature of the dispute.’

320