True to its task of encouraging the progressive development and codification of international law, the Sixth Committee (Legal) today discussed ongoing efforts to conclude new international conventions on crimes against humanity and disaster preparedness.
On the latter, the representative of Cameroon — speaking for the African Group — recalled the General Assembly’s decision to convene a UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters for three weeks in 2027. Pointing out that disasters are occurring with increasing intensity and frequency, he stressed that the consequences “weigh most heavily on States with the least capacity to respond”. International cooperation, then, is “indispensable”, he underscored — “particularly for developing countries that lack the resources and technical capacities to adequately respond to large-scale disasters”.
The representative of Timor-Leste, speaking for the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, pointed out that many of its members are among those most vulnerable to the impacts of disasters. As such, he expressed support for a “sound legal framework” that can strengthen prevention and risk-reduction efforts, facilitate international cooperation and assistance and contribute to more effective responses. Noting that the Conference — which will be held in Bangkok — “will last only three weeks”, he stressed: “It will be particularly important to make good use of the time available.”
“This means sending delegations with clear negotiating instructions and the authority to agree on a text,” said Nigeria’s representative, also speaking for the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Colombia, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica and Thailand. It also means engaging in good faith with the flexibility to reach consensus, using the coming months to consult within and across regional groups. And as many of the States most exposed to disasters are developing countries, small island developing States and least developed countries, he called on those that can do so to contribute to the trust fund designed to support their participation.
Agreeing, the representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that such countries’ “exposure to disasters and practical experience can help shape a convention that is relevant and fit for purpose”. This treaty must provide legal certainty and maintain operational flexibility to guide States and other relevant actors in the event of disasters across varying contexts and countries. “It must not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach,” she underscored, calling for a balance between an affected State’s authority and the international cooperation providing much-needed assistance.
Another balance that must be struck, noted Germany’s representative, is that between the normative and operational aspects of a future convention. While the International Law Commission’s draft articles on the topic provide a “sound basis” for discussion, he said that they must be operationalized further to provide for the protection of humanitarian personnel, work permits and freedom of movement in times of crisis. In this, the expertise and practical experience of civil society organizations will “help inform the development of effective and workable solutions”, he said.
Assistance with Consent
Meanwhile, Brazil’s representative said that humanitarian action “must remain guided exclusively by the needs of affected persons” and carried out “free from political, economic or any other form of undue influence”. External assistance must be based on the consent of the affected country, she said, and stressed that the provision of such aid “should never be used as a pretext for intervention in the domestic affairs of any State”. This, she said, will ensure national ownership, align assistance with identified needs, build trust among cooperating States and increase adherence to a future convention.
Outlining an existing policy in place at the regional level was the representative of Thailand, speaking for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), who pointed to the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response. It provides, inter alia, that external assistance is only given with the consent of the affected State and that signatories cooperate according to their respective needs, capabilities and situations. Further, it is supported by a regional mechanism that facilitates cooperation among ASEAN members, and he said that any new instrument “should draw upon the good practices of existing frameworks”.
The representative of Brunei Darussalam agreed, so that a new convention “harmonizes — rather than fragments — the international legal landscape”. Specifically, she called for coherence between a future treaty and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, as well as with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Negotiations, added Somalia’s representative, “should produce an instrument whose obligations are precise, whose procedures are workable and whose implementation is supported by adequate capacity”.
Debate Concludes on Crimes against Humanity Convention
On efforts to conclude this international instrument, the representative of Vanuatu said that environmental destruction can “devastate communities, livelihoods and the natural systems upon which human life depends”. She therefore urged States to address this alongside the crime of “ecocide”. More broadly, she stressed: “We must use this opportunity not merely to codify existing principles, but to strengthen the international community’s practical ability to prevent and respond to atrocities.”
Bangladesh’s representative recalled that, “80 years ago, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg declared that crimes against international law are committed by men — not abstract entities — and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced”. Expressing support for a dedicated convention to fill this gap where crimes against humanity are concerned, he added: “A convention that punishes but does not prevent will arrive too late for the victims.”
The representative of Burundi, too, stressed that prevention “must remain at the heart” of a future convention, and efforts to do so should include measures to strengthen the rule of law, protect fundamental rights and establish effective mechanisms for early warning and intervention. Further, a future convention should be based on legal certainty, sovereign equality and mutual respect for the dignity of all human beings. Preventing crimes against humanity “isn’t only a legal undertaking, it is also a historic and moral responsibility”, he urged.
“Above all, we must protect the children,” said Andorra’s representative, asking: “What greater illustration of human depravity can there be than turning a child’s innocence into an instrument of war?” While a new convention will not end conflicts or eradicate inhumanity — “we are not naïve”, he said — it can strengthen accountability, increase international unity and make impunity increasingly costly. Urging States to confront human cruelty with the full force of international law, he stressed that the fight against impunity is a “test of our collective humanity”.