Speakers Praise World Court’s Resilience amid COVID-19 Pandemic, Stressing Continued Need for Global Dispute Settlement Platform
The General Assembly today adopted a resolution emphasizing the need for adequate, predictable and sustainable funding of the United Nations resident coordinator system, following a day‑long debate on the work of the International Court of Justice, which marks its seventy-fifth anniversary in 2021.
By the terms of the resolution, titled “Review of the functioning of the reinvigorated resident coordinator system, including its funding arrangement” (document A/76/L.4), the Assembly welcomed the progress made in implementing its resolution 72/729 on the repositioning of the United Nations development system and in creating an empowered, independent and impartial resident coordinator system. It also invited the Secretary‑General to report to the Assembly and make recommendations if the resident coordinator system’s proper functioning is not enabled through the generation of adequate, predictable and sustainable funding.
The resident coordinator system ensures the coordination of all organizations of the United Nations dealing with operational activities for development at the country level. It is focused on the advancement of sustainable development, leaving no one behind and the eradication of poverty, consistent with the integrated nature of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Also today, more than 40 speakers took the rostrum for the Assembly’s review of the International Court of Justice annual report (document A/76/4), which covers the period 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2021, with many delegations emphasizing that the Court’s growing and diversified caseload reflects its status as an internationally respected lynchpin of the rules‑based multilateral system.
Joan E. Donoghue, the Court’s President, said its docket remained full throughout the reporting period, with 15 contentious cases currently on its list, involving States from around the world and touching on a wide range of issues. Those included territorial and maritime delimitation, reparations for internationally wrongful acts and alleged violations of bilateral and multilateral treaties concerning, among other things, diplomatic relations and eliminating racial discrimination.
No new cases were added in 2020, when the COVID‑19 pandemic led to the Court adopting hybrid hearings, but so far in 2021 it has taken on three new contentious cases, she said. One case concerns a land and maritime delimitation and sovereignty dispute between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, while the other two ‑ one initiated by Armenia, the other by Azerbaijan ‑ deal with alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
She briefed the Assembly on the Court’s decisions during the reporting period in cases involving Equatorial Guinea versus France, Guyana versus Venezuela, Iran versus the United States, Qatar versus the United Arab Emirates and Somalia versus Kenya. In addition, she discussed the creation of a three‑judge ad hoc panel to monitor implementation of the Court’s decisions, and updated Member States on a newly established trust fund that will enable law graduates from developing countries to participate in the Court’s Judicial Fellowship Programme.
Azerbaijan’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Non‑Aligned Movement, underscored the Court’s 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, in which it concluded that States have an obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. He also called on Israel, as an occupying Power, to respect the Court’s 2004 advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The representative of the United States emphasized that the Assembly’s ability to request advisory opinions from the Court cannot be misused for political gain or to circumvent the Court’s jurisdiction over contentious proceedings. “The advisory function of the [Court] was not intended to settle disputes between States,” he emphasized.
Finland’s delegate, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, called for a better gender balance in the Court. As judges are concerned, this requires country‑level attention, she said. “The submission of a dispute to the Court should not be regarded as an unfriendly act,” she continued, adding: “It is rather an act to fulfil the obligation of all States to settle their disputes peacefully.”
The representative of Guatemala noted that, following referendums, his country and Belize decided to take their long‑standing border dispute to the Court. He expressed concern, however, that financial challenges could hamper its work, and urged Member States to fulfil their financial obligations.
Bangladesh’s representative, noting that his country is currently hosting more than 1.1 million Rohingya refugees, detailed the Court’s 23 January 2020 order indicating provisional measures against Myanmar and called for full implementation of the same by all concerned stakeholders.
Also addressing specific cases before with the Court, the representative of Iran said two cases filed by his country in the past five years ‑ both stemming from the imposition of sanctions and other measures by the United States ‑ are still pending. In that regard, he warned that prolonging judicial proceedings would run counter to the principle of exigency of due process.
The representative of Senegal said Member States, the Assembly and the Security Council must guarantee respect for, and implementation of, the Court’s decisions. Recalling that only 74 countries have so far made a declaration recognizing as compulsory the Court’s jurisdiction, he invited all States which have not yet done so to follow suit.
Numerous speakers also paid tribute to James Richard Crawford of Australia, one of the Court’s 15 judges, who died on 31 May at the age of 72. The Security Council and the Assembly will meet independently but concurrently on 5 November to elect his successor. (See Press Release SC/14566.)
In addition to the annual report, the Assembly had before it the Court’s report titled “Secretary‑General’s trust fund to assist States in the settlement of disputes through the International Court of Justice” (document A/76/196) as well as a note by the Secretariat titled “Trust fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme of the International Court of Justice” (document A/76/431).
Also speaking today were representatives of Hungary (on behalf of the Visegrád Group), Australia (also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand), Angola (on behalf of the Community of Portuguese‑Speaking Countries), Romania, Switzerland, Cuba, Brazil, Germany, Philippines, Honduras, Singapore, France, Ecuador, Egypt, China, Argentina, Japan, Liechtenstein, Nicaragua, Netherlands, Chile, Viet Nam, Ukraine, Costa Rica, Greece, Cyprus, Peru, Oman, Malaysia, Georgia, Colombia, Indonesia, India, Bolivia, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Eritrea, Belarus, Turkey, Japan and El Salvador.
A representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine also spoke.
The representatives of the Russian Federation and Israel, as well as the representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine, spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The General Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 29 October, to take up the report of the Human Rights Council and to take action on a draft decision on its high‑level meeting on the appraisal of the United Nations Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons.
Opening Remarks
ABDULLA SHAHID (Maldives), President of the General Assembly, delivering opening remarks, said the International Court of Justice strengthens international peace and security and promotes advances in the areas of human rights and sustainable development. He commended the establishment in 1999 of the Judicial Fellowship Programme, which enables recent law graduates to gain experience working at the World Court in The Hague, as well as the creation of a related trust fund in 2000. He went on to express condolences on the passing on 31 May of James Richard Crawford (Australia), one of the Court’s 15 judges.
Briefing by President of the International Criminal Court
JOAN E. DONOGHUE, President of the International Court of Justice, addressing the Assembly for the first time since commencing her mandate, said that during the reporting period, the Court’s docket remained full, with 15 cases on its list. No new cases were added in 2020, a period that coincided with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but three contentious cases have been added so far in 2021. They include a land and sea delimitation and sovereignty dispute between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea; a case filed by Armenia against Azerbaijan concerning alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and a further application submitted by Azerbaijan against Armenia alleging violations of the same Convention.
During the reporting period, she said the Court held hybrid hearings in six cases and delivered five judgements. It currently has four cases under deliberation: The question of reparations in the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda); the merits in the case concerning Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia); and two cases relating to requests for the indication of provisional measures in the cases concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan) and (Azerbaijan v. Armenia).
Providing a brief account of the Court’s decisions during the period under review, she said that in the case concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), it found that a building located at 42 Avenue Foch in Paris that was searched by French investigators as part of a criminal investigation never acquired the status of a diplomatic mission, and that France therefore did not violate its obligations under article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), the Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain Guyana’s claims concerning the validity of that Award and the related question of the definitive settlement of the dispute regarding the land boundary between the territories of the two parties. However, the Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over certain other claims of Guyana, she said, adding that the case has now proceeded to the merits stage.
In the case concerning Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), instituted by Iran in response to the United States’ reimposition of restrictive measures on Iran and Iranian nationals, she said that the Court on 3 February rejected all five objections raised by the United States. It also found that it had jurisdiction, based on the Treaty, to entertain the application. The case is now proceeding to the merits phase. In the case concerning the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), initiated by Qatar after the United Arab Emirates severed diplomatic and other relations in 2017, the Court held, among other things, that the relevant measures did not entail racial discrimination within the meaning of the Convention. The case was thus removed from the Court’s docket.
She went on to note that, in its judgement on the merits in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), initiated in 2014 by Somalia, the Court held that there was no agreed maritime boundary between the two countries. The Court then proceeded to delimit the territorial sea, using a median line as provided for in Article 15 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It further delimited the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf up to 200 nautical miles, following its usual three‑step methodology. In response to an allegation made by Somalia, the Court found that Kenya did not violate its international obligation through its maritime activities in the disputed area.
Turning to non-judicial matters, she drew attention to the Court’s adoption in December 2020 of a new Article 11 of the Resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court, providing for the possibility for the Court to establish an ad hoc committee of three judges to assist in the monitoring of the implementation of its provisional measures. It will examine information provided by the parties, report to the Court periodically and recommend potential action if required. Then in January, the Court set a page limit on annexes to written pleadings, in response to a growing tendency by States to provide extensive documentation in the belief that they can gain an advantage. “As you all know from your work here in the General Assembly … shorter and more focused materials are often more persuasive and effective than a vast collection of documents of varying degrees of relevance and reliability,” she said.
She also updated the Assembly on the status of the Trust Fund for the Court’s Judicial Fellowship Programme, formally established on 16 April, which provides financial support for recent law graduates from developing countries to become Judicial Fellows for a 10‑month period. Several States have already contributed to the Fund and hopefully others will follow suit, she said, adding that the eligible graduates will join the programme in late 2022.
She went on to say that due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, the Court postponed a solemn sitting in the Peace Palace in The Hague to mark the seventy‑fifth anniversary of its inaugural sitting, which took place on 18 April 1946. It did, however, mark the milestone through virtual platforms, including an online tour of the Peace Palace and an illustrated book for the general public to be published later in 2021. The Court looks forward to resuming its work in its traditional manner once pandemic‑related conditions allow, she said, emphasizing the importance of the Court conducting its hearing in a formal and solemn setting. It is also awaiting more details from the Netherlands regarding the scope, modalities and schedule for a planned renovation of the Peace Palace, which requires extensive repair, including the removal of asbestos from some parts of the building, she said.
Statements
RITA SILEK (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the Visegrád Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia), welcomed the technical arrangements made by the Court to adapt its working methods to the pandemic and thus continue its work. The new contentious proceedings instituted before the Court together with two judgments on the merits, two additional judgments on jurisdiction and several orders the Court delivered during the period under consideration, prove its efficiency in rendering global justice. With respect to monitoring the implementation of provisional measures instituted by the Court, she noted the establishment of an ad hoc committee to assist its work.
She went on to say that the Statute of the Court provides for different means of acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court. Apart from the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, treaty provisions on peaceful settlement of disputes offer another way to accept the Court’s jurisdiction. She encouraged States to continue including such jurisdictional clauses in treaties and to consider refraining from making reservations to them. She drew attention to the importance of creating opportunities for a future generation of devoted and highly professional international lawyers at the Court. In this context, she supported General Assembly resolution 75/129, in which the Assembly requested that the Secretary‑General establish a trust fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme of the Court.
TOFIG MUSAYEV (Azerbaijan), speaking for the Non‑Aligned Movement, underscored that the International Court of Justice has a significant role in promoting and encouraging the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. Recalling the eighteenth summit, held in 2019 in Azerbaijan with the leaders of the Non‑Aligned Movement member States, he urged the Security Council to make greater use of the Court as a source of advisory opinions and interpretation of international law, and invited the General Assembly, as well as other organs and agencies of the United Nations, to request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.
Reaffirming the importance of the Court’s advisory opinion issued on 8 July 1996 on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (A/51/218, annex), he recalled that the Court concluded unanimously that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control. He also called on Israel, the occupying Power, to fully respect the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the Court on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (A/ES‑10/273), urging all States to respect and ensure respect for the provisions therein for the realization of the end of the Israeli occupation and the independence of the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital.
KAIJA SUVANTO (Finland), also speaking for Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, said that the International Court of Justice has earned a solid reputation for impartiality and for upholding the highest legal standards. The large volume and diversity of cases testify to the respect the Court enjoys as well as to the role it plays in the rules‑based multilateral order. She commended the Court for its ongoing contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes and spotlighted how it has managed to sustain its work during the COVID‑19 pandemic with public hearings conducted by video or in a hybrid format.
She applauded the establishment of the Trust Fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme of the Court, saying that it will, hopefully, encourage geographic, linguistic and gender diversity and, in time, contribute to the Court’s composition. She also emphasized the need to strive for a better gender balance in the court, emphasizing that as far as judges are concerned, this requires country‑level attention. “The submission of a dispute to the Court should not be regarded as an unfriendly act. It is rather an act to fulfil the obligation of all States to settle their disputes peacefully”, she added. In that regard, she urged all States to engage in multilateral rules‑based cooperation and called upon those States which have not yet done so to consider accepting the Court’s jurisdiction.
MITCHELL FIFIELD (Australia), also speaking for Canada and New Zealand, reaffirmed his strong support for the critical role played by the Court in facilitating the peaceful settlement of disputes between States and maintaining and promoting the rule of law throughout the world. Over the last 20 years, the Court’s workload has grown considerably. The willingness of States to entrust the Court with their disputes reflects the strength of their confidence in the Court’s independence, the expertise and integrity of its judges and the rigour of its proceedings, and the Court’s institutional significance as a mechanism for States to resolve their disputes peacefully. He commended the Court for adapting its working methods to enable it to continue to perform its judicial functions during the pandemic.
He encouraged the international community to turn to the Court to resolve disputes and urged States that have not yet done so to deposit with the Secretary‑General a declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. The implementation of binding judgments of the Court is essential to ensuring the final resolution of disputes and reinforcing a judicial system that is of benefit to all Member States. However, he pointed out that, over the Court’s 76-year history, there have only been four women appointed as permanent Judges, compared with 105 men. In this regard, he said that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and nine other countries from across Europe, Africa and the Asia‑Pacific have nominated Hilary Charlesworth as candidate for election to the Court on 5 November to fill the vacancy arising from Judge Crawford’s passing.
MARIA DE JESUS DOS REIS FERREIRA (Angola), speaking for the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries, observed that cases submitted to the Court have been growing in factual and legal complexity. Therefore, the existing dialogue between the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Court in the interpretation of the Charter of the United Nations is of utmost importance.
She noted that during the period under review, the Court adopted a new article 11 of the resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court and amended one provision of its Practice Directions adopted in 2001 for use by States appearing before it, with a view to addressing the proliferation and protraction of annexes to written pleadings. In this regard, the rulings and advisory opinions issued by the Court have given a meaningful contribution to strengthening and clarifying the rules of international law. Likewise, she welcomed the Court’s endeavours to ensure that its decisions are publicized as widely as possible, both through its publications, the development of multimedia platforms, the use of social media networks and its own internet website.
ALINA OROSAN (Romania), drawing attention to the Court’s seventy‑fifth anniversary, said that her country has put forth an initiative to broaden the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction on a more predictable basis, in accordance with its Statute, by building upon and re-energizing previous efforts in this area. Together with Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Spain, and Switzerland, her country has elaborated a declaration on promoting the jurisdiction of the Court, which will lie at the heart of a dedicated global campaign. By endorsing this declaration, States can show their willingness to ground their foreign policies on strict compliance with international law, she said. Further, a better use could be made of the advisory function of the Court. She also recalled the adoption, by consensus, in December 2020, of General Assembly resolution 75/129, which establishes the Trust Fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme of the Court. In that regard, her country will be making a voluntary contribution to the Trust Fund next year, she stated.
Ms. GMUR-SCHONENBERGER (Switzerland), encouraging all States to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court, said that in 2014 her country, along with several States, had published a handbook on accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The handbook, which is available in all United Nations languages on the website of the Court, offers useful indications regarding the different ways in which a State may consent to the jurisdiction of the Court. Noting that State consent is crucial to allowing the Court to exercise its mandate, she expressed regret that no additional State accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court since 2019. She expressed hope that the handbook could help to remedy that. Turning to Romania’s initiative on strengthening the jurisdiction of the Court, she said Switzerland joined that statement, which aims at encouraging States to have recourse to it. Any State that has not yet done so is encouraged to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. Noting that a launch event will be held on 3 November, she called on all the other States to participate and encouraged them to also sign the declaration.
INDIRA GUARDIA GONZÁLEZ (Cuba), associating herself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, said her country voluntarily deferred to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, while voicing concern about the effectiveness and the enforceability of the Court’s judgments, which are undermined by some countries who take advantage of the privilege of the veto right in the Security Council. Noting that the Court should undertake a critical assessment of its relationship with United Nations bodies, in particular the Security Council, she pointed to the need for a reform of the United Nations system in order to grant greater guarantees to developing countries, including in the International Court of Justice. Commending the usefulness of the Court’s online resources for developing countries, she drew attention to several important advisory opinions, including on the legality of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons, the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 ‑ all of which need to be observed.
GEORGE RODRIGO BANDEIRA GALINDO (Brazil), aligning himself with the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries, said that this year’s report confirms the continuity of the auspicious history of the Court, with four judgments, nine procedural orders and one new contentious case, raising the number of cases entered in the Court’s General list to 14. He welcomed the Court’s outreach efforts, bringing it closer to a variety of audiences across the world and thus helping to disseminate international law. In addition, he highlighted the efforts of the Court to promote geographic and linguistic diversity of legal practitioners taking part in its Judicial Fellowship Programme, noting that Brazil co-sponsored last year’s General Assembly resolution 75/129. He also expressed his appreciation for the Trust Fund that was established this year, saying that such efforts will lead to the increase of young jurists from universities based in developing countries. The much‑needed focus on prevention of conflicts is closely linked to the peaceful settlement of disputes, he emphasized.
CHRISTOPHE EICK (Germany), noting the steadily rising number of cases in front of the Court, with over 140 disputes, said it has become the most prominent international instrument for settling disputes. The Court, along with the International Criminal Court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Permanent Court of Arbitration and other international and hybrid courts, is a major pillar of the international rules‑based order, he said, stressing the importance of States’ consent. His country recognized the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory, he said, stressing that whenever States do so, they must respect and follow the Court’s decisions. Refusal or failure to comply with a judgment not only frustrates the Court’s efforts to bring to a conclusion the dispute in question, but also undermines respect for the Court and erodes respect for the global rule of law, he emphasized.
AZELA GUERRERO ARUMPAC-MARTE (Philippines), associating herself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, pointed out that the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes developed the first comprehensive plan for peaceful dispute settlement. Further, it emphasized the International Court of Justice’s role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. She welcomed the Court’s quick response to the pandemic, including its holding of public sittings by video link and, later, in hybrid format. The Court’s increasing workload and the geographic diversity of States bringing cases before it illustrate the vitality and universal character of its jurisdiction. The international community’s trust and confidence in the Court, however, must be accompanied by the provision of the funding necessary for its proper functioning. Noting that the Philippines has recognized the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction since 1972, she called on other States to do the same. She also called on the Security Council to make greater use of the Court as a source of advisory opinions and interpretation of relevant international-law norms.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) welcomed the Court’s recent decisions to establish an ad hoc committee to address its current workload and to establish and administer a trust fund for its Judicial Fellowship Programme. He also called on the Court to ensure geographic and linguistic diversity when selecting participants for the Programme. In line with its Constitutional commitment to the peaceful settlement of international disputes, Bangladesh has resolved its outstanding issues concerning maritime boundary delimitation with neighbouring countries through international judicial means. As such, it will follow the Court’s work on territorial and maritime disputes, as well as on the conservation of natural and living resources, with interest. Noting that his country is currently hosting more than 1.1 million Rohingya refugees who fled atrocities in Myanmar, he detailed the Court’s 23 January 2020 order indicating provisional measures against Myanmar and called for full implementation of the same by all concerned stakeholders.
YOLANNIE CERRATO (Honduras) welcomed the efforts of the International Court of Justice to maintain its effectiveness in resolving international disputes or issuing advisory opinions despite the increase in workload reported over the last 20 years. Given difficult times faced by humankind due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, she highlighted efforts by the United Nations and, in particular, by the registry of the International Court of Justice, to comply with budgetary adjustments and limitations. Expressing her hope that the budget for 2022 will be approved, she also welcomed the Court’s efforts to improve young people’s understanding of international law and the Court’s proceedings through its Annual Judicial Fellowship Programme, which allows interested universities to appoint and sponsor recent law graduates so that they may continue their training in a professional context within the Court. She further reiterated her country’s willingness to contribute to the search for solutions to the concerns and questions raised in the report, to enable the Court to continue functioning as effectively as possible.
MAJID TAKHT RAVANCHI (Iran) said that two cases filed by his country before the Court within the past five years are still pending. One case involves the blocking of assets and enforcement proceedings by the United States against the Central Bank of Iran and certain Iranian companies in violation of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights signed by Iran and the United States in 1955. The other case stems from the sanctions and restrictive measures enforced after the United States’ withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear programme, contrary to that country’s obligations under the same bilateral Treaty. Following Iran’s request for provisional measures, the Court ordered the United States in October 2018 to remove any impediments on Iran’s importation of food, medicines, medical devices and spare parts for civilian aircraft. However, not only did the United States fail to comply with the Court’s order, but it also defied it when it imposed new sanctions during the COVID‑19 pandemic. On 3 February, the Court held that it has jurisdiction in the case, with the United States expected to file a counter‑memorial by 22 November. Given the urgency of the case, however, prolonging judicial proceedings would run counter to the exigency of due process, he stressed.
OMAR CASTAÑEDA SOLARES (Guatemala) pointed to his country’s decision that the International Court of Justice should resolve its dispute with neighbouring Belize. Both countries carried out their respective popular consultations peacefully and positively, with the primary goal of definitively resolving their dispute. In addition, he welcomed the Court’s setting of deadlines for the submission of Guatemala’s Memorial and for the Counter‑Memorial of Belize. Noting with concern that the Court faces financial challenges due to the liquidity problems it has encountered in 2020 and 2021, he said the report points to difficulties engendered by those financial constraints and warns that they could even hinder the implementation of the Court’s mandate in the current biennium. Highlighting that the Court itself has taken cost containment measures, he urged Member States to fulfil their financial obligations.
BURHAN GAFOOR (Singapore) said that in its seventy‑fifth year, the Court shows no signs of slowing down. He welcomed the Trust Fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme of the Court, saying it will promote greater geographic and linguistic diversity and, in time, greater adherence to international law. He also said he looks forward to further details on the scope, extent and schedule of the Court’s relocation to temporary quarters ahead of the renovation of the Peace Palace. Those temporary premises must suit the Court’s needs to enable it to carry out its judicial functions without interruption. As well, he commended the Court for modernizing and streamlining its processes in ways that will contribute to its sound administration of justice.
FRANÇOIS ALABRUNE (France), noting that the Court has seen an increase in the dispute settlement processes with 15 ongoing dispute procedures, said its decisions contribute to an easing of tensions among States. Emphasizing that France is a party to a large number of treaties containing compromise clauses providing for the competence of the International Court of Justice, he noted his country is the only State which has agreed that the Court can examine a request for which its competence was not initially established. Turning to the Court’s advisory opinions, which are not obligatory, he said they provide a better understanding of international law and strengthen its authority. Emphasizing the importance attached by the Court to the representation of various languages and legal cultures, he said they improve the quality of its the work as well as the authority of its jurisprudence. He further pointed to the bilingualism enshrined in the Court’s statute, which provides for its work in both English and French.
CRISTIAN ESPINOSA CAÑIZARES (Ecuador) noted that the International Court of Justice has all the conditions needed to promote and achieve its objectives. Commending the Court’s effective work in its seventy‑fifth anniversary year, he recalled that it has considered 140 cases and 25 requests for advisory opinions in the course of its work, urging countries that have not done so to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction and respect its decisions. Noting the extent to which the Court’s workload has increased in the last 20 years – which is a sign of Member states’ confidence in the institution – he called for it to be provided with the necessary means to carry out its mission. He also welcomed the Judicial Fellows Programme, which enables universities in developing countries to train high quality jurists.
Mr. ABDELAZIZ (Egypt), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, thanked the President of the Court for her statement, adding that his country is “very happy to see a lady at the helm of this great judicial institution”. The Court’s seventy‑fifth anniversary is a great opportunity to take stock of its achievements. In that vein, he emphasized the Court’s core role in a multilateral system that hinges on a solid legal platform, and urged all States to maximize its benefits when it comes to the peaceful resolution of disputes. He recalled that in 1947 his country declared its commitment to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in relation to the Suez Canal. He also underscored the importance of the Court’s advisory mandate, which clarifies areas of ambiguity and helps countries better implement international law.
GENG SHUANG (China) said that, since its establishment 75 years ago, the Court has ruled in 154 cases and issued 28 advisory opinions, making a great contribution to the interpretation and application of international law. It is broadly recognized by the international community, having become the world’s most authoritative international judicial institution. In its decision in the case concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), it clarified the rules of diplomatic law and the determination of mission premises. Hopefully, the next phase of proceedings in the case concerning Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) will clarify the negative impact of unilateral sanctions. Quoting President Xi Jinping’s recent remarks to the General Assembly’s high‑level debate, he said that, no matter how the world changes, China stands ready to work with others to uphold the United Nations Charter, support the work of the Organization and the Court and safeguard the international legal order.
HOLGER MARTINSEN (Argentina) said the increase in the Court’s cases year after year shows an acknowledgment on the part of Member States, who accept its jurisdiction, that it is preferable to resolve disputes peacefully through judicial means rather than allowing those disputes to worsen. The Court’s latest report indicates an average period of six months between the closing of a case and the issuance of an advisory opinion, which does not represent an increase in time, and should constitute an incentive for all Member States to submit their cases to the Court’s jurisdiction. Noting a “disturbing” lack of contributions in the current period and in the past two periods, he urged all States and entities who have not done so to seriously consider making contributions in a substantial and periodic fashion, warning that the high costs involved could disincentivize States who consider resorting to those judicial means. On the trust fund for the Court’s Judicial Fellowship Programme, he said an increase in the opportunities for future law professionals to become familiar with the Court and learn from its judges will strengthen the rule of law and disseminate information on the important role played by the Court in promoting international peace and security.
ISHIKANE KIMIHIRO (Japan) expressed his country’s high regard for the work of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Affirming Japan’s trust in the Court to continue to take a balanced approach to treaty interpretation in accordance with the customary rules reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, he said such an approach is the key which would allow the Court to continue to enjoy a high level of confidence from the international community. Noting that an essential aspect of rules‑based international relations is to encourage the peaceful settlement of disputes through international judicial institutions, such as the International Court of Justice, he called upon all Member States to consider accepting its compulsory jurisdiction for the settlement of disputes not covered by other relevant dispute settlement mechanisms.
CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein), noting that only 73 States have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, recalled that his country joined a declaration calling on all States to show their commitment to the rule of law and help strengthen it at the international level. In that context, he stated that all States aspiring to serve on the Security Council and serving as Permanent Members should lead by example by accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. Pointing to the pending case on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), he said it can serve as a key element in effort to ensure accountability for crimes committed in Myanmar. The Court’s provisional orders are legally binding with respect to that case, he recalled. Noting the increase in the number of requests for advisory opinions, he noted that many opinions requested by the General Assembly became landmark ones, including on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and on the territorial status of South West Africa (now Namibia) and Western Sahara.
JASSER JIMÉNEZ (Nicaragua), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, noted a lack of support the International Court of Justice in areas which are key to the administration of justice, including the appointment of experts by the Court. Commending the Court’s efforts to adapt to the new pandemic reality through the organization of hybrid hearings and reducing the time of oral hearings, he welcomed the establishment of a special ad hoc committee of three judges ‑ tasked with reviewing the implementation of the Court’s provisional measures – which will strengthen the rule of law at the international level. Noting the establishment of the Trust Fund for the Fellowship Programme of the International Court of Justice, he pointed to its important role in introducing youth from developing countries, such as those in Latin America and the Caribbean, to the Court’s judicial activities. He further lauded the use of social media platforms by the Court to promote the teaching and broader understanding of the international law.
RENÉ LEFEBER (Netherlands), underscoring the Netherlands’ pride as the Court’s host country, encouraged all those Member States which have not yet done so to accept the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction by issuing a declaration under article 36(2) of its Statute and to do so with as few reservations as possible. In that regard, he expressed concern regarding a trend towards more, rather than less, reservations made to the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. “Only when given a broad mandate will the Court be able to fulfil its mandate as the primary judicial organ of the world community,” he stressed. He also highlighted the growing importance of reasoned decisions, saying that they should be provided not only for provisional measures and judgments, but also for procedural matters, including requests for documents.
Mr. DEVILLAINE GOMEZ (Chile) said the diversity of issues before the International Court of Justice shows the very valuable work done by the Court in resolving important issues. In addition, the increase in the Court’s activities, as laid out in the report, reflects the trust which States have placed in it, especially considering the voluntary nature of resorting to the Court. He noted Chile’s submission of matters which are of the highest legal importance for the country, stating that the country currently has a pending dispute on the status and use of waters between Chile and Bolivia. He noted that, despite the complex working conditions brought about by the COVID‑19 pandemic, the work of the Court’s judges and staff did not diminish. He urged the Court to continue its Judicial Fellowship Programme, adding that the initiative brings society together and closer to the work of the Court.
DANG DINH QUY (Viet Nam), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the Court’s current docket of 14 cases from the world’s five regions reflects Member States’ renewed confidence and trust. It is essential to continue to ensure the quality of the Court’s pronouncements, efficiency and the impartiality of the judges, he said, welcoming efforts to continually review its procedures and working methods. Through its jurisprudence, the Court contributes to solidifying the role of international law and the rule of law as a foundation for peaceful coexistence among States. Adding that there is ample space to increase cooperation between the Court and the main organs of the United Nations, he said the obligation to peacefully settle disputes requires States to implement in good faith the Court’s judgments, awards, orders and other decisions once they have consented to the process, and it is in the common interest of all countries to raise awareness of and build national capacity in using judicial bodies as a means of doing so. Highlighting the Court’s public outreach activities, he said Viet Nam supports all efforts to make the Judicial Fellows Programme and other educational opportunities more accessible to young academics from developing countries and hopes that a trust fund for that purpose will soon be operational.
Ms. ZOLOTARYOVA (Ukraine) welcomed changes in the Court’s working methods, stressing that they show the need for further improvement. She considered it important to communicate well and popularize the Court’s decisions. Further, she emphasized that the Court’s provisional measures are crucial for compliance with its decisions. She recalled that after invading eastern Ukraine, the Russian Federation implemented discriminatory measures against the Crimean Tatars. Recalling that, in its decision of 19 April 2017, the Court asked the Russian Federation to stop imposing obstacles to the rights of that community, she said that on 1 June 2021 the Superior Court of Crimea, under the control of Moscow, sentenced the leader of the Crimean Tatars to six years in prison for incitement to violence. Ukraine intends to present a draft resolution on the issue of discrimination against its population by the Russian Federation to the Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), she said, calling on other States to co‑sponsor it.
MARITZA CHAN VALVERDE (Costa Rica) noting that the Court can implement its mandate only if properly funded, emphasized the organ’s fundamental role in the development, interpretation and dissemination of customary international law. Pointing out that without the consent of the States, the Court cannot exercise its judicial function, she called on States that have not done so to recognize its jurisdiction as compulsory in all relevant disputes. Turning to reporting on disputes accepted by the Court, she stressed that reports submitted by States on compliance with provisional measures pending a final judgement, especially those with human rights implications, should be made public. She went on to propose that the United Nations follows up on Court’s decisions and highlight cases of non‑compliance in order to avoid situations where States which have accepted compulsory jurisdiction ignore the Court’s judgement and thus compromise the rule of law.
MARIA THEOFILI (Greece) said that full compliance with the Court’s decisions is not only an obligation for Member States, but also a prerogative for the effective performance of the Court’s important functions; it is an essential element for the maintenance of the international legal order. In that regard, she welcomes the Court’s establishment of an ad hoc committee, composed of three judges, with a mandate to assist in the monitoring of the implementation of provisional measures indicated by the Court. Turning to the upcoming elections for a new judge, she said that Linos‑Alexandre Sicilianos, until recently President of the European Court of Human Rights, is an excellent candidate, given his thorough knowledge of international law and his experience in the academic and multilateral milieu.
THOMAS CARNAHAN (United States) said it is gratifying to know that for those Member States that accept its jurisdiction, the International Court of Justice stands ready to adjudicate their disputes. However, consent is central to maintaining its credibility, he said, adding that the distinction between the Court’s contentious and advisory jurisdictions, as set out in its Statute, must be maintained. The Assembly’s ability to request advisory opinions is important, but it cannot be misused for political gain or to circumvent the Court’s jurisdiction over contentious proceedings. “The advisory function of the [Court] was not intended to settle disputes between States,” he said. Going forward, the United States hopes that the innovative ways that the Court adapted to continue its work during the COVID‑19 pandemic will prove beneficial in the future, he added.
ANDREAS HADJICHRYSANTHOU (Cyprus) stressed the importance of selecting the most prominent jurists of high merit, from all regions and diverse legal traditions, to serve as judges on the International Court of Justice. Noting that the Court has settled over 140 contentious cases and provided over 25 advisory opinions 75 years since its inaugural sitting, he pointed out that it has also demonstrated the capacity to tackle cases relating to new areas of international law, such as environmental disputes. He went on to reiterate his country’s readiness to engage in negotiations with relevant countries for the peaceful settlement of any maritime dispute in the eastern Mediterranean, in full respect of international law, including the settling of any such dispute before the Court. Encouraging all Member States to recognize the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, he also voiced concern about the disappointing trend of declining numbers of new treaties that include compromissory clauses providing for recourse to the Court, and called for strengthened partnership between the Security Council and the Court.
ALESSANDRA FALCONI (Peru), noting the Court’s role in settling disputes between States and the importance of respecting its decisions and judgments, encouraged those States that have not yet done so to consider recognizing its jurisdiction. She commended the valuable and intense work of the Court’s registry and called upon the Assembly to continue to consider the needs of the Court, taking into account its many activities. She highlighted the trust fund for the Court’s Judicial Fellowship Programme, which was established to promote the development of international law and the training of legal professionals, especially from developing countries, and urged States and other organizations to make contributions to it. She further reiterated her country’s appreciation to the Court’s host State, the Netherlands, for its continued commitment and support for the organ’s work, while stressing the importance of cooperation between the Court and the other principal organs based in New York.
HAZAA MOHAMMED SAIF AL REESI (Oman) noted that one of the conditions for United Nations membership is the acceptance of the status and legal jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice by Member States. The Court adjudicates legal disputes that may arise between States and, in so doing, provides them with options for resolving their disputes peacefully. Against that backdrop, he called on all Member States to support the Court’s efforts in the service of international peace and security, given its expertise. He also reaffirmed his country’s respect for the rules of international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter, while affirming Oman’s full support for the different organs of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
MOHD HAFIZ BIN OTHMAN (Malaysia) associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, praised the appointment of women judges at senior leadership positions. He noted that the Court continues to receive an increasing number of cases, underlining the confidence placed by States in its mandate. Malaysia remains committed to the achievement of peace through law, he said, citing cases on the sovereignty over the Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan islands, as well as other
Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Pointing to the importance of the Court’s advisory opinions, he referred to one such opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, in 1996, as particularly significant. He concluded by encouraging the Security Council to consider Article 96 of the United Nations Charter and make greater use of the Court as a source of advisory opinion.
GIORGI MIKELADZE (Georgia) said the world unfortunately continues to suffer from blatant violations of fundamental principles of international law, citing the Russian Federation as the power exercising effective control over the occupied Abkhazia and Tskhinvali regions of his country and seeking their full incorporation into its military, political and economic systems. He emphasized that the Russian Federation’s full responsibility for violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the regions was reaffirmed by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 January 2021 on the case of Georgia v. Russia (II), legally establishing and confirming the fact of the country’s occupation. That Court further confirmed the Russian Federation’s responsibility, during the August 2008 Russo‑Georgian War, for killing, torture and arbitrary detention of Georgian civilians and military personnel, and inhumane treatment of Georgians “targeted as an ethnic group”.
ABDOU NDOYE (Senegal), associating himself with relevant groups, underscored the Court’s crucial role in promoting the rule of law and called upon Member States to continue to turn to it to resolve disputes peacefully. He called on Member States and international financial institutions to contribute to the Trust Fund for the Court’s Judicial Fellowship Programme to further enhance the Programme’s geographical and linguistic diversity. He also stressed the need for Member States, the Assembly and the Security Council to guarantee respect for, and the implementation of, the Court’s decisions. Only 74 Member States have so far made a declaration recognizing as compulsory the Court’s jurisdiction, he said, inviting all States which have not yet done so to follow suit.
LUCIA TERESA SOLANO RAMIREZ (Colombia), detailing the measures taken by the Court to remain operational during the COVID‑19 pandemic, noted that representatives of her country were able to participate in hybrid hearings on the case related to the presumed violations of sovereign rights and maritime spaces. She went on to welcome adjustments made by the Court to its internal judicial practice and guidance on practice, noting that those will make the Court’s work more efficient. Outlining the efforts of the Court to facilitate training of students and young professionals, including through the Judicial Fellowship Programme, she expressed hope that lawyers from Latin America and the Caribbean will benefit from such initiatives.
MOHAMMAD KURNIADI KOBA (Indonesia), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, noted the Court’s contributions to the corpus of international law during the last reporting period through, among other things, the handing down of four judgements and nine orders, reviews of four ongoing cases and one new contentious case, as well as other relevant activities pertaining to the Court’s functions and roles. He stressed that the Court must remain committed to delivering credible judgments and advisory opinions. In addition, he voiced appreciation for the innovative approach and methods of the Court amidst the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the amendment of its Rules and the issuance of relevant Guidelines to adapt to the current unprecedented circumstances. He also supported the continued development of the Court’s activities in disseminating its roles and works and reaching out to wider audiences by virtue of electronic and digital media.
KAJAL BHAT (India), pointing out that the Court’s workload has grown considerably in past years, said its pending contentious cases depict a diverse geographical spread and are illustrative of the universal character of its jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the diversity of case subject matter ‑ involving territorial and maritime delimitation, diplomatic missions, human rights, reparation for internationally wrongful acts, interpretation and application of international treaties and conventions, and environmental protection ‑ illustrates the general character of its jurisdiction. Highlighting the Court’s activities during the judicial year 2020‑2021, she took note of the adoption of a new article 11 of the Resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court, which provides for the establishment of an ad hoc committee, as well as the amendment of one of the Court’s Practice Directions, with a view to addressing the proliferation and protraction of annexes to written pleadings.
DIEGO PARY RODRÍGUEZ (Bolivia), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, recalled that the controversy on the status and use of the waters of the Silala River between Chile and Bolivia is still pending before the International Court of Justice. He welcomed the establishment of the Trust Fund for the creation of a Fellowship Programme for graduate students in international law, while calling for the recognition of multilingualism as another tool to respect and expand geographic diversity. He added that the most appropriate way to peacefully resolve disputes between States will always be through dialogue between brotherly peoples, but recourse to the International Court of Justice is a right that every State also enjoys.
JUAN GÓMEZ ROBLEDO VERDUZCO (Mexico) said the Court’s ability to adapt to a new reality shows that the main judicial organ of the United Nations can modernize and respond. Mexico continues to advocate for allowing the Secretary‑General to request advisory opinions from the Court without first going to the Assembly or the Security Council, which would result in strengthening his capacity for mediation and good offices. Despite the Court’s demonstrated integrity, effectiveness and legitimacy, only 74 Member States — less than half of the United Nations membership — have accepted its compulsory jurisdiction. In that regard, Mexico supports Romania’s initiative to promote the adoption of a declaration in support of the Court’s jurisdiction. Given the increase in the Court’s workload in recent decades, it is important to provide it with sufficient funds. He added that the large number of cases from Latin America and the Caribbean reflect the region’s trust in the Court.
THILAKAMUNI REKHA NISANSALA GUNASEKERA (Sri Lanka) commended the Court for standing up for international law during turbulent times, as well as for addressing such contentious matters as land and water delimitation, human rights and environmental protection. Noting that the Court has also engaged in reviewing its internal procedures, she went on to laud a number of other achievements, including its provision of advisory opinions to the General Assembly and Economic and Social Council as well as its promotion of international law among youth. In that context, she encouraged the Court’s judges to renew their influence with continuous reforms in an ever‑changing world.
MAJED S.F. BAMYA, Observer for the State of Palestine, described the International Court of Justice as the cornerstone of the international law-based order, voicing regret that its jurisdiction does not apply to all States. Expressing his support for declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory, he added that compliance with its decisions is indispensable to preserving the rule of law. Referring to the advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory ‑ which exposed the illegality of the Israeli policies ‑ he said that, despite that inadmissible acquisition of land by force, Israel continues to annex Palestinian land. “The international community must ensure that the future of the region is one of peace and not apartheid”, he stressed, calling on the United Nations to use the Court to peacefully settle disputes while reiterating his support for the rule of law and the Charter of the United Nations.
The Assembly then took note of the Court’s report.
Right of Reply
The representative of the Russian Federation, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said the representative of Ukraine made false accusations against his country alongside a false interpretation of a process which has yet to be completed. It is inappropriate and incorrect to comment on judicial proceedings underway at the Peace Palace, he added.
The representative of Israel said the Court should be a beacon of hope and a clear voice of international law and justice, and must not be used as a political tool or a means to improve a negotiating posture. Peace and true justice will only take hold in the Middle East when certain actors stop making threats and begin negotiations, she said.
The observer of the State of Palestine said resorting to the Court is not a threat or a bargaining chip, but a way to advance international law. He added that apartheid is not just a word but a reality lived daily by the Palestinian people.
Resident Coordinator System
The Assembly then turned its attention to the draft resolution “Review of the functioning of the reinvigorated resident coordinator system, including its funding arrangement” (document A/76/L.4).
By its terms, the Assembly would welcome progress made in implementing its resolution 72/729 on the repositioning of the United Nations development system and in creating an empowered, independent and impartial resident coordinator system. It would decide to provide sufficient funding for the system on an annual basis starting from 1 January 2022 through the continuation of the funding model established by resolution 72/729. It would invite the Secretary‑General to report to the Assembly and make recommendations if the resident coordinator system’s proper functioning is not enabled through the generation of adequate, predictable and sustainable funding. It would further urge the entities of the United Nations development system to promote inter-agency mobility, including by enhancing the resident coordinator function as a career path for staff members.
The Assembly adopted “L.4” without a vote.
The representative of Algeria, speaking in explanation of position and as co-facilitator of the text, thanked those Member States which engaged constructively in informal consultations. Describing resolution 72/769 as a landmark text aimed at better positioning the United Nations to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals, he said today’s resolution builds on past texts by clearly recognizing the resident coordinator system’s critical enabling role, which will be even more important during the Decade of Action to deliver on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The representative of Denmark, the text’s other co-facilitator, said the consultations were a unique opportunity to take stock of how far the reinvigorated resident coordinator system has come. However, Member States failed to reach a common understanding on how to fund the system. The resolution emphasizes the need for adequate financing, but political will is needed for that aspiration to become reality, he stressed.
BOUBACAR DIALLO (Guinea), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, reiterated the Group’s commitment to the repositioned United Nations development system and its reinvigorated resident coordinator system. Although disappointed that the General Assembly was not able to move the funding of the system to a more stable and predictable foundation, the Group welcomes that at least the funding proposal of the resolution does not weaken the system’s current funding. He called on all entities of the United Nations development system to continue contributing through the cost‑sharing arrangement, voicing concern about financial shortfalls observed in the budget. In that regard, he raised the possibility of partially funding the system through a hybrid model with a share coming from United Nations assessed contributions and called on traditional donors to step up and provide the needed voluntary contributions in line with the Secretary‑General’s proposal and the resolution adopted today.
Ms. MICAEL (Eritrea), speaking on behalf of the African Group and associating himself with the Group of 77, welcomed the resolution’s adoption and expressed support for the resident coordinator system’s efforts to help countries across the African continent achieve the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda. As previously stated, a sustainable and predictable funding model is needed. Noting that Africa is the largest beneficiary of the resident coordinator system “and the most in need of it”, she said predicable funding is critical in the years ahead. The African Group would have preferred more ambitious language on the system’s funding model, she said, welcoming language in the resolution ensuring the continuation of those discussions should the current model not prove adequate. The African Group is of the view that the fully assessed model, or the model known as “funding 2.0”, is the best option available.
JUSTIN PETER FEPULEAI (New Zealand), also speaking on behalf of Australia and Canada, affirmed that draft resolution “L.4” outlines Member States’ expectation that the United Nations development system will continue to engage with the resident coordinators in exercising their functions. As the global community anticipates recovery from the COVID‑19 pandemic, it is more important than ever for the United Nations to engage effectively with programme countries and partners, including international financial institutions, as access to predictable funding is crucial. “We recognize that the current system has not delivered against its funding targets,” he said, noting the three States have expressed their willingness to consider alternative methods to deliver on that goal. He reiterated his call for all Member States to provide voluntary contributions to ensure the smooth and effective functioning of the system.
AXEL DE LA MAISONNEUVE, on behalf of the European Union in its capacity as observer, noted that the resident coordinators system passed its first “stress test” during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The United Nations development system under the impartial and neutral leadership of resident coordinators should demonstrate more joint action to address crisis such as climate change or the recent changes in Afghanistan. Noting that States have agreed to adhere to the existing funding model, he encouraged countries to reach consensus on a more creative solution with an adjusted model. Stressing the importance of ensuring predictable and sustainable funding for the system of resident coordinators, he urged all States to share the burden of financing that system through voluntary contributions.
THOMAS CARNAHAN (United States) said that, as the top financial contributor to the resident coordinators system, the United States expects accountability. Pointing to calls to report on the resident coordinators system’s performance using a results framework with multi-year indicators – and to ensure the independence of the systemwide evaluation office ‑ he urged the Secretary‑General to heed those calls as a top priority. The system funding should be linked to performance and results, he said, noting that a productive funding arrangement should empower the resident coordinators system to carry out their work effectively and deliver results. Moving forward, the United States will continue to engage with States and the Secretariat to implement the present resolution and ensure the resident coordinators system is fit for purpose, he said.
SIV CATHERINE MOE (Norway), joining consensus on the resolution’s adoption, said that as Member States move forward with the current funding model, she hopes that they will do their utmost to fund the resident coordinator system. Norway will continue to do its part and support the system with voluntary contributions.
ALEKSANDRA SHMAT (Belarus), also joining the consensus, expressed support for continued work to develop and adapt a resident coordinator system that meets the needs of countries and aligns with the values of independence and impartiality. On the funding mechanism, she said it is unacceptable to increase financial burdens on developing countries and called on the United Nations to establish a unified legal framework for the presence of resident coordinators ‑ in cooperation with the relevant host country and taking into account greater accountability – to further improve the system.
SERHAD VARLI (Turkey) highlighted the resolution’s adoption by consensus, while underlining his delegation’s support for its funding system. Efficiency, transparency and accountability must remain the principles underlying the reform of the United Nations development system. In that regard, he added that the international community must work on innovative systems to find adequate funding.
KIMURA TETSUYA (Japan) expressed strong support for the United Nations development system and its reform, adding that one of the fundamental characteristics of the United Nations activities is its voluntary nature and its ability to respond to Member States in a flexible manner. The capacities and offices of the resident coordinators must be designed considering specificities on the ground, he said. The reform discussion must be transparent and evidence-based. He added that the $28 million budget needs to be reviewed, while also proposing that experts could be made available to all teams on-site.
LIU LIQUN (China) said the United Nations should encourage resident coordinators and country teams to fully meet the aspirations of host countries, including in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The satisfaction of host countries should be an important criterion for measuring the performance of resident coordinators, he said, citing the need to increase the representation of developing countries and improve geographical balance in the system. He also noted that funding should follow the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, and further encouraged the United Nations Secretariat to provide States with timely information on the system’s budget performance and efficiency.
SHERINE MOHAMED EISSA AHMED ELSAEED (Egypt), associating herself with the Group of 77 and the African Group, said her country recognizes the important role of resident coordinators in developing countries, including Egypt, and is pleased to join consensus on the adoption of the resolution. She welcomed the inclusion of the revision mechanism to allow reassessment of the current country model and enable the proper functioning of the resident coordinator system.
ANDREA ALEJANDRA BARAHONA FIGUEROA (El Salvador), associating herself with the Group of 77, noted the need to strengthen the resident coordinator system, as called for in the resolution. The coordinator system is essential for recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, as well as for promoting innovative strategic actions to implement the 2030 Agenda. She called on States to increase their financial contributions to the system to allow for greater diversification of development actions on the ground, including in unpredictable situations, such as pandemics and natural disasters.
Mr. USTINOV (Russian Federation) said that the existing funding mode was the only one States could possibly agree upon, and called for more accountability on the part of resident coordinators. Moreover, different ways of requesting funding should be identified, he said, noting that his country looks forward to proposals in that regard.
