CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

MAREK ZUKAL attention of States /…/” . This proposal by the facilitator did not include annexing the draft conclusions to the resolution. However, the silence procedure on the facilitator’s proposal was broken by several delegations (Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Jordan, Mexico, Switzerland, South Africa and Portugal). These delegations argued that the text was too weak and therefore unbalanced (they sought a “stronger” text of the resolution in exchange for agreeing not to annex the draft conclusions to the resolution). The facilitator then made some changes to his proposal and submitted the text to the Committee for action. It was not clear until the last moment whether the draft would be adopted by consensus – some delegations seriously considered calling for a vote and breaking the long-standing tradition of consensus-based decision making in the Sixth Committee. In the end, however, the text was adopted by consensus, with many delegations intervening with explanations of their positions (Mexico even dissociated itself from the consensus). According to some States, the approach of the Sixth Committee sends a negative signal about the approach of States towards basic norms of international law and undermines the relationship of the Sixth Committee with the ILC. Other delegations reiterated their criticism of the draft conclusions themselves, in particular the non-exhaustive list of peremptory norms attached to them. The adopted resolution 27 represents a significant departure from the established practice of the Committee, but postponing the negotiations for yet another year would probably be an even worse option. Delegations generally agreed that the resolution should not constitute a precedent for treatment of ILC products by the Committee (this has also been put on the record by the facilitator). Given the extreme positions taken by delegations (some of which opposed adopting any resolution at all), the adoption a resolution on this topic is a success in itself. The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction The agenda item entitled “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction” has been on the agenda of the Committee since 2009. It was then added to the agenda at the request of Tanzania on behalf of the Group of African States. Since then, the Sixth Committee has debated the issue annually, with a working group convening every two years (the last working group was convened in 2022). 28 The debate in the Sixth Committee was polarized in the autumn of 2024. Some delegations expressed concern about the arbitrary and selective use of universal jurisdiction. Iran, Russia, China, India and Belarus were the most critical of alleged abuses of universal jurisdiction. According to them, universal jurisdiction was being misused to interfere in the internal affairs of States (Russia even said it was a “tool of the Collective West to topple unfriendly regimes” 29 ). India, for example, stated that the only crime for which universal jurisdiction could be applied under international law was piracy. On the other side of the 27 Resolution of the General Assembly A/RES/78/109, adopted on 7 December 2023. Available here: https:// documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n23/399/46/pdf/n2339946.pdf?token=KgfnuC3UxdzAGcU3DN&fe=true. 28 See ZUKAL, Marek and Jan MAIS, op. cit. 29 Statement by the Russian Federation on The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, 12 October 2023. Available here: https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/78/pdfs/statements/universal_ jurisdiction/12mtg_russia.pdf.

334