A/70/PV.47 General Assembly

I welcome The Honourable Judge Ronny Abraham, President of the International Court of Justice, to the General Assembly. Since its creation 70 years ago, the Court has played a crucial role in advancing the rule of law at the international level, and its judgments and advisory opinions contribute to promoting international law worldwide. During those years, the increased level of activity of the Court has been an indication of the growing desire of States to settle their international disputes by peaceful means, in accordance with the Charter. It has also demonstrated that States from all regions of the world have strong confidence in the Court and its capacity to deliver justice for all. In April next year, we will celebrate the seventieth anniversary of the first session of the International Court of Justice. That will be an occasion to recognize the fundamental role that the principal judicial organ of the United Nations has played in the maintenance of peace and security in our world, but also in dealing with the challenges that lie ahead and how best to overcome them, inspired by our commitment to international law. *1535218* 15-35218 (E) It is now my honour to invite Judge Ronny Abraham, President of the International Court of Justice, to take the floor.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. I would first like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice for his comprehensive report on the work of the Court (A/70/4). The Non-Aligned Movement attaches great importance to agenda item 75, “Report of the International Court of Justice”, and takes note of the account contained in the report on the activities of the Court between 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2015, as requested by the decision of the Assembly last year. I would also like to thank the President of the Court for his statement in presenting his report to the General Assembly today. The Non-Aligned Movement reaffirms and underscores its principled positions concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-use or threat of use of force. The International Court of Justice plays a significant role in promoting and encouraging the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means, as reflected in the Charter of the United Nations, and does so in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered. The Movement endeavours to generate further progress in the promotion of full respect for international law and, in that regard, commends the role of the Court in promoting the peaceful settlement of international disputes, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the Court, in particular Articles 33 and 94 of the Charter. In regard to the advisory opinions of the Court, we note the fact that the Security Council has not sought any advisory opinion from the Court since 1970, and the Movement urges the Security Council to make greater use of the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, as a source of advisory opinions and interpretations of the relevant norms of international law, as well as opinions on controversial issues. It further requests the Council to use the Court as a source of interpretations relating to relevant international law issues, and also urges it to consider having Council decisions reviewed by the Court, with a view to ensuring their adherence to the Charter of the United Nations and international law. The Movement also invites the General Assembly, other bodies of the United Nations and the specialized agencies so authorized to request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. The Non-Aligned Movement reaffirms the importance of the unanimous nature of the Court’s advisory opinion issued on 8 July 1996, entitled the “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”. On that issue, the Court concluded that an obligation exists to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. The Non-Aligned Movement continues to call on Israel, the occupying Power, to fully respect the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the Court entitled “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, and calls upon all States to respect and ensure respect of the provisions contained therein aimed at ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and establishing an independent State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital.

My delegation has the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of African States. The African Group associates itself with the statement just delivered by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. At the outset, the African Group would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Ronny Abraham, for his presentation and also for the report of the Court on its work (A/70/4). The African Group continues to consider the International Court of Justice as the pre-eminent mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes at the international level. It should be kept in mind that the Court, as a court of justice and, moreover, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, occupies a special position. Everything that the Court does is aimed at promoting the rule of law. The World Court hands down judgments and advisory opinions in accordance with its Statute, which is an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations, and thus contributes to promoting and clarifying international law. The African Group welcomes the reaffirmed confidence that States have shown in the Court’s ability to resolve their disputes. In particular, we are pleased to see that States continue to refer disputes to the Court. We commend States for no longer limiting their referral of cases to matters of little political significance and for referring disputes involving weighty political issues. The number of cases currently pending on the Court’s docket is a reflection of the esteem in which the States hold the International Court of Justice. Notwithstanding the proliferation of international judicial dispute-settlement mechanisms of both a specialized and a regional nature, the Court continues to attract a wide range of cases covering many areas. While the Court’s determination that the requirement to cooperate is based principally on treaty obligations, it also clearly draws upon general principles, particularly in making the link between procedural and substantive obligations. The principle of prevention, enunciated in an earlier Court decision, notably the Corfu Channel case and the advisory opinion concerning the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, is drawn upon significantly by the Court. As such, the African Group reaffirms the importance of the unanimous Court advisory opinion issued on 8 July 1996 concerning the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. In that decision, the International Court of Justice concluded that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. In that respect, it is interesting to note that the current list of cases before the Court includes cases on obligations concerning negotiations relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament. By an order dated 19 July 2015, the Court fixed the time limit for the filing by the Republic of the Marshall Islands of a written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the case. The Marshall Islands alleges breaches of article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by the United Kingdom. Article VI of the NPT provides that “[e]ach of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” To that end, the Marshall Islands contends that the United Kingdom has breached, and continues to breach, its legal duty to perform its obligations under the NPT and customary international law in good faith. Once again, by an order dated 9 July 2015, the Court extended from 17 July 2015 to 1 December 2015 the time limit for the filing of the counter-memorial of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of its application in the case. We eagerly await those judgments, with the hope that they will build on the already rich wealth of jurisprudence in this area, and in international law in general. The importance of advisory opinions on legal questions referred to the International Court of Justice cannot be overstated in the pursuit of the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It is therefore rather disappointing that during the period under review, no requests for advisory opinions were made.

On behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ), I would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Ronny Abraham, for his informative report (A/70/4) on the work of the Court over the past year. I would also like to thank former President Judge Tomka for his important contribution during his term as President. The International Court of Justice plays a critical role in the peaceful settlement of disputes between States and in providing advisory opinions on emerging or controversial issues in international law. CANZ countries continue to support the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The Court’s demanding caseload, dealing with a variety of subject matters, serves to demonstrate its wide appeal and highlights the important role it plays in the promotion of the rule of law. Looking at the Court’s work over the past year, cases before the Court continued to raise issues at the forefront of international law. We understand that the agenda of the Court in the year ahead will remain a busy one. International law and the rule of law are the foundations of the international system. As States that accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and have been parties to proceedings before it, the CANZ countries are convinced that greater acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court contributes to strengthening the rule of law internationally by broadening the options available to States to ensure the peaceful settlement of disputes. It also helps the Court to fulfil its role more effectively by permitting it to focus on the substance of disputes more quickly. We continue to urge Member States that have not done so to deposit with the Secretary-General a declaration of acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. Finally, the CANZ group would like to express its appreciation to Judge Sepúlveda Amor for his vital contribution to the development of international law through his work as Judge and Vice-President, and to wish him well in his future endeavours. We would also like to thank and acknowledge Judge Keith of New Zealand for his substantial contribution to the Court’s work. Similarly, we also would like to recognize Judge Skotnikov for his work as Judge on the Court. The CANZ group also congratulates Judges Crawford, Gevorgian and Robinson on their elections to the Court, and Judges Bennouna and Donoghue for their re-elections to the Court. We look forward to continuing to support the Court in its central contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes.

At the outset, I would like to thank Judge Ronny Abraham, President of the International Court of Justice, for his comprehensive report (A/70/4) on the judicial activities of the Court for the period from August 2014 to July 2015. I also thank him and Vice-President Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf for guiding the work of the Court. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court is poised to celebrate its seventieth anniversary in April next year. The International Court of Justice is entrusted with the task of the peaceful resolution of disputes between States, which is fundamental for fulfilment of one of the purposes of the United Nations, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security. We acknowledge that the Court has fulfilled that task admirably since its establishment and has acquired a well-deserved reputation as an impartial institution, maintaining the highest legal standards in accordance with its mandate under the Charter of the United Nations, of which the Statute of the Court is an integral part. One of the primary goals of the United Nations, as stated in the Preamble of the United Nations Charter, is to establish conditions under which justice and respect for international obligations can be maintained. The International Court of Justice, as the only Court with general international law jurisdiction, is uniquely placed to help achieve that goal. The report of the Court illustrates the importance States attach to the Court and the confidence they place in it. The importance of the Court is also evident from the number, nature and variety of cases that the Court deals with and, in doing so, its ability to deal with the complex aspects of public international law. The judgments delivered by the Court have played an important role in the interpretation and clarification of the rules of international law, as well as in the progressive development and codification of international law. In the performance of its judicial functions, the Court has remained highly sensitive to the political realities and sentiments of States, while acting in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, its own Statute and other applicable rules of international law. During the judicial year 2014-2015, the Court delivered a judgment, held public hearings in two cases and handed down nine orders. The number of contentious cases on the Court’s docket stands at 12. The universality of the Court is evident from the fact that States from across all the continents submitted cases to the Court for adjudication. The cases before the Court involve a wide variety of subject matter, such as territorial and maritime disputes, environmental damage and the conservation of living resources, violations of territorial integrity, violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, genocide, the interpretation and application of international conventions and treaties and the interpretation of the Court’s own judgments. The Court’s second function is to provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies. Although no request for its advisory opinion was made during the past judicial year, that function of the Court adds to its important role of clarifying key international legal issues. The report of the Court rightly points out that “everything the Court does is aimed at promoting the rule of law” (A/70/4, para. 23), in particular through its judgments and advisory opinions. It is worth mentioning that the Court ensures the greatest possible global awareness of its decisions through its publications, multimedia offerings and website, which now features the Court’s entire jurisprudence, as well as that of its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice. Those sources provide useful information for States wishing to submit a potential dispute to the Court. We share the concern of the Court concerning problems relating to a health risk due to the presence of asbestos in the Peace Palace, and we support all efforts required to deal with it. Finally, India wishes to reaffirm its strong support to the Court and to acknowledge the importance that the international community attaches to the work of the Court.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this agenda item on the report of the International Court of Justice (A/70/4) at the current session of the General Assembly. At the outset, on behalf of the Chinese delegation, please allow me to thank President Abraham for his statement. My thanks also go to all the judges and staff of the Court for their hard work over the past year. This year marks the seventieth anniversary of the United Nations. The Court’s history spans nearly 70 years. The judicial activities of the Court represent an important means in peacefully settling disputes. That practice, dating back nearly 70 years, has proved that the Court, as one of the six major organs and the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, plays an indispensable role in fulfilling the fundamental purpose of the United Nations, namely, maintaining international peace and security. China appreciates the work of and contribution by the Court in that regard. During its nearly 70-year history, the Court has delivered 120 verdicts and issued 27 advisory opinions on a wide range of important issues, such as the non-use of force, non-interference in internal affairs, diplomatic and consular relations and decolonization. In those judicial activities, the Court has applied, interpreted, clarified or confirmed the relevant principles of international law and the fundamental norms of international relations, thereby contributing to the further clarification of norms governing State-to-State relations. Like the rest of the international community, China has always closely followed the judicial activities of the Court and attaches great importance to the significant role of the Court in promoting the development of international law. The Chinese delegation has also noted in the reports submitted to the General Assembly in recent years that the Court has repeatedly referred to the difficulties it faces in terms of human and financial resources. My delegation believes it critical that the Court should have resources that are commensurate with its status and role within the United Nations framework, which is essential to ensuring its effective operation and high- quality judicial activities. As an active advocate for the peaceful settlement of disputes, China supports dispute settlement through such appropriate means as negotiations, dialogue and consultations. The selection and application of the means of dispute settlement should be made in strict accordance with the principle of sovereign equality and in full respect of the wishes of the States concerned. China is consistently committed to settling disputes through friendly consultations and, as always, will support the Court in fulfilling its mandate.
In recent years, the workload of the Court has been on the rise — a fact that reflects both the important role played by the Court in the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the trust in and expectation of impartiality from the Court on the part of the international community, especially the parties to a dispute. China hopes that the Court will continue to faithfully perform its judicial function in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the Court, seek peaceful settlement of international disputes and make further contributions to the maintenance of the international order and system, with the United Nations as the anchor and the defence of the authority of the Charter and fundamental norms of international law.

At the outset, I would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice for his report (A/70/4) and introductory statement. Nicaragua associates itself with the statement made by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. As is clear from the report before us, the number of cases before the International Court of Justice is increasing every year, thereby reflecting the confidence that Member States place in the Court, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. That trust has been a constant factor notwithstanding the growing number of international tribunals established over the past decades, and reaffirms the flagship role played by the Court in the peaceful settlement of disputes. It is for those reasons that Nicaragua is pleased that, since the last reporting period, two additional States have joined in recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, in accordance with the Statute of the Court. However, it also notes that 72 such declarations represent a relatively small number as compared with the 193 States Members of the Organization. In its own particular case, Nicaragua, a small developing country that depends on respect for international law to protect its national interests, has turned to the Court on several occasions. It has also accepted the jurisdiction of the Court whenever it has been a respondent and, while it does have a reservation, has never invoked that reservation and is currently in the process of withdrawing it. During 2015, Nicaragua has taken part in oral hearings in four separate cases. The Court has begun its deliberation on the merits of two joined cases involving disputes with the Republic of Costa Rica — Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) — and in two other cases in deliberation in which preliminary objections have been raised by Colombia concerning the jurisdiction of the Court — Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) and Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia). Nicaragua takes this opportunity to reiterate that it has faithfully fulfilled its international obligations in every case to which it has been party, and that it expects reciprocity in the fulfilment of the obligation to abide by the judgments of the International Court of Justice in cases to which it is party, while stressing that the existence of a dispute does not justify the use of force or threat of force by any of the States parties to the dispute. It is also important to note that, in contentious proceedings registered in the Central Registry of the Court, five States in the Americas — all Latin American countries — are parties to these proceedings, which is the highest number of participants from the same continent. In terms of resources, the first thing to note is that the Court has the smallest budget of all the principal organs of the United Nations system, and yet has been the most effective in preventing wars. It is also the most cost-effective body of the international judicial system. Its costs have remained low despite its increased workload, as reflected in both the number of pending cases — 12 cases at the moment —and the increasing substantive complexity of the cases before the Court, which require highly specialized technical advice. Similarly, Nicaragua notes with satisfaction the new technical facilities available to parties for oral hearings and the constant support provided by the Secretariat for that purpose. Nicaragua, as a State party in several cases, knows at first hand the financial challenges that sometimes require the Court to charge the parties for the costs of certain procedures, such as translations, which is onerous for less affluent countries. Accordingly, Nicaragua urges Member States to consider those aspects in their discussions in the Fifth Committee and to provide this main organ with the financial and technical support it needs to resolve the complex disputes that are submitted to it. Likewise, Member States are urged to contribute to the Secretary-General’s Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes through the International Court of Justice. The development and strengthening of friendly relations among States are enhanced when disputes are permanently resolved by the means provided by international law, of which the Court, the Organization’s principal judiciary organ, is one of the most respected institutions. Finally, it is worth noting, as the President of the Court has said in other forums, that the Assembly can make better use of its powers to request advisory opinions of the Court, and thereby support the development of international law and strengthen respect for the rule of law internationally. We again welcome the submission of the report of the Court and look forward to actively participating in the celebrations of the seventieth anniversary of the Court, scheduled for April 2016. Those celebrations will provide a unique opportunity for States that have not yet done so to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under the Statute or withdraw their reservations. The celebrations will be even more meaningful if a record number of countries accept the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction.

I wish to express my most sincere congratulations to President Ronny Abraham on his election as President of the International Court of Justice, as well as to express my country‘s deep appreciation for the report (A/70/4) of the Court. As is the case every year, it is thorough, comprehensive and substantive. In the period covered by the report, we witnessed an expansion in the Court’s substantive jurisdiction and an increase in the complexity of the matters before it. On 3 February 2015, the Court delivered its judgment in the case Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia). The judgment gave the Court an opportunity to provide a clarification of the concept of genocide, citing the preparatory work of the Convention to emphasize the distinction between “physical” genocide and “cultural” genocide. The decision also provides an interesting view of the application of logic as well as the presumption of non-retroactivity, as set forth in article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. While that presumption applies to substantive obligations, including the obligation to prevent genocide, this logical obstacle does not exist in relation to the treaty obligation to punish acts perpetrated before the treaty entered into force. The case concerning Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia) was removed from the Court’s list, following the applicant’s withdrawal when the parties reached an amicable settlement. The case had offered the Court a new area to explore in the evolution of contemporary international relations. Meanwhile, in its judgment of 24 September 2015 on the preliminary objections in the case concerning Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), the Court recalled the reference points in relation to the concept of the object of a dispute, whose definition is given by the Court itself. The broad spectrum of matters on the Court’s docket at present, including maritime delimitations and nuclear disarmament, demonstrates the increased interest of States in the settlement of disputes through the Court. Romania strongly supports the International Court of Justice. Our country is convinced that the Court has an essential role to play in international relations for the promotion of the rule of law internationally and to ensure the supremacy of international law. For Romania, international law represents something of value for the international community, and it is a pillar of our foreign policy. The year 2015 has marked a milestone for my country in its relationship with the International Court of Justice. After actively participating in the life of the Court, including in the contentious case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Romania deposited with the Secretary- General, on 23 June 2015, its declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, thus becoming the seventy-second State to accept that obligation.That decision was the end point of a complex process that started in 2012. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs led a complex public and academic debate, while a detailed analysis of the consequences of such a declaration was undertaken. The public debate showed broad support for the initiative among the political forces, authorities, experts in international public law and the general public. Following the public and inter-institutional debate, some reservations or limitations were proposed. In order to confer greater domestic legitimacy on that decision, a law was adopted by Parliament and signed by the President of Romania. The acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction confirms Romania’s full trust in the International Court of Justice and its efforts to strengthen the rule of law at the international level. The declaration is proof that my country is committed to conducting its foreign relations in accordance with international law and that it is prepared to settle any disputes in a peaceful manner in accordance with the law. Allow me to conclude by expressing my belief that the Court will continue to develop its activity and to represent the highest standard of professionalism and impartiality.

The United States would like to congratulate President Abraham on his election to the presidency of the International Court of Justice earlier this year. We also congratulate Judges Joan Donoghue and Mohamed Bennouna on their re-elections, and Judges James Crawford, Kirill Gevorgian and Patrick Robinson on their elections as new members of the Court. We would like to thank President Abraham for his leadership of the Court over much of the past year and for his recent report (A/70/4) regarding the activities of the Court between August 2014 and July 2015. In reviewing the report, we are again struck by how productive the Court has continued to be over the course of a year. The Court issued one judgment and nine orders and held public hearings in two cases. In addition, the Court remained seized of a number of other matters, with a total of 12 cases on its list. We commend the Court’s increasing ability to respond promptly and efficiently to the requests put before it, particularly in the light of its growing caseload as well as the growing factual and legal complexity of its cases, and we appreciate that the Court has set a particularly demanding schedule of hearings and deliberations for itself. We believe those efforts will continue to bolster confidence in the Court and often provide States with an opportunity to resolve disputes before they escalate. This year, as in years past, the Court has taken up a considerable range of topics, including genocide, boundary disputes, the use of force and the interpretation of international agreements. It is as a result of such efforts that we continue to see States turn to the Court to resolve their disputes peacefully. We also wish to remark on the Court’s continued public outreach to educate key sectors of society, including law professors, students, judicial and Government officials and the general public, to increase understanding of the Court and its work. We appreciate the efforts that the Court has made to increase accessibility and transparency, including by making its recordings available to watch live on demand on United Nations Web TV. All those efforts complement United Nations efforts to promote the rule of law globally and to promote better public understanding of international law. As we approach the seventieth anniversary of the Court’s inaugural session at the Peace Palace, we have a unique opportunity to reflect on the Court’s important role and on the impressive jurisprudence it has developed. The International Court of Justice was established under Article 92 of the Charter of the United Nations as the principal judicial organ of the Organization and, in its nearly seven decades of work since then, it has contributed immeasurably to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to the development and understanding of international law. The Preamble to the Charter underscores the determination of its drafters to establish the conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. That essential goal lies at the core of the Charter system, and in particular of the Court. The United States is pleased to join others today in celebrating and applauding nearly 70 years of the Court’s work.

The delegation of Mexico would like to express its deep appreciation to the International Court of Justice for its arduous work over the past year, which was just described by its President, Judge Ronny Abraham. At the same time, Mexico welcomes the Court’s renewal during the reporting period, which reaffirms its universal character and ensures that its decisions will be adopted with respect for the principal judicial systems and the multiplicity of regional perspectives and realities. All of that will help to ensure that the highest international judicial organ will continue the excellent work that has characterized it during its first 70 years. Mexico would like to recognize the judges, who performed their task in the most exemplary manner, thereby creating an enduring legacy for the Court and for international justice. We would like to acknowledge in particular the work of Judges Leonid Skotnikov, Kenneth Keith and Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor. The dedication and knowledge that Judge Sepúlveda Amor brought to his service with the Court are a source of great pride for Mexico. The Court’s intense activity during recent years bears out the trust that the international community has placed in it as the ideal mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The consolidation of the Court is evident from its universal mission, with States employing the full range of procedural measures provided for in its Statute, and from the breadth of the substantive issues represented in the disputes that have been brought before it. There can be no doubt that the International Court of Justice plays a crucial role in the promotion and applicability of the rule of law at the international level. The existence of efficient judicial mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of any disputes that may arise in the application or interpretation of international law is essential to the very concept of the rule of law. That leads to two fundamental points: the need for more States to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, as provided for by Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute, and the need for full compliance with the judgments issued by the Court. Mexico would like to highlight the great legal value of the Court’s judgments, both for the parties to a case and for the international community as a whole, since jurisprudence is an auxiliary source of key importance in determining the validity and content of norms. The Court has an essential role to play in the development of international law, especially as the leading voice in dialogue with other legal organs, a role that enriches international law and helps prevent its fragmentation. From the point of view of procedural law, the work of the Court has become more complicated because States now increasingly use all the alternatives and procedures provided for in the Statute, such as the request for provisional measures and the interpretation of judgments whose determination by the Court are of primary importance to avoid the escalation of disputes or the emergence of new ones. In addition, from the perspective of substantive law, the International Court of Justice acts to settle disputes that arise on very diverse issues and reflect its genuinely broad-based character. In addition to territorial conflicts and those pertaining to maritime boundaries, the Court hears questions related to the treatment of nationals by other States, charges of massive violations of human rights or of State responsibility for international crimes, and issues relating to the environment and the management of shared natural resources, among others. In the period covered by the report, the Court resolved an issue that was of great legal complexity and political sensitivity. We hope that it will help to strengthen peace in the region involved. The case is important because of the precedent that it sets for jurisdictional limitations, in accordance with the scope of the optional clause based on which a dispute is submitted, the interpretation of the validity of treaties, in particular the presumption against the retroactive application of treaties, the juridical scope in the case of States’ succession and, of course, the interpretation of the substantive provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Mexico wishes to thank the General Assembly for its willingness to authorize new deadlines and other budgetary requests for the Court and calls for it to continue providing the tools necessary to ensure that the Court functions at optimal capacity as the principal judicial organ of the Organization. In addition to the administrative improvements at the Court itself, there is no doubt that addressing the prolonged delays that existed before has led to the commitment by States to providing increased human resources. In that regard, we wish to call for assurances that the Court has sufficient resources for the celebration of its seventieth anniversary, in 2016. Mexico also wishes to express its sincere congratulations to the Registrar of the Court, Philippe Couvreur, on his recent election, which is undoubtedly because of his outstanding performance in all three areas — legal, diplomatic and administrative — of his work. I would like to conclude my statement by acknowledging the efforts of the International Court of Justice to provide as much transparency as possible in its work, particularly the considerable effort it made to improve its website. Through the site, it is possible to consult not only judgments and advisory opinions but all the documents of the parties. That initiative is most valuable to all States and all those studying international law.

My delegation would like to express its appreciation to Judge Ronny Abraham for his able leadership as President of the International Court of Justice and for his comprehensive report (A/70/4) on the activities of the Court over the past year. The Court has continued to be very active. For the present reporting period, the Court rendered one judgment, handed down nine orders, held several public hearings and was seized of new contentious cases. The 12 cases that remain on the Court’s docket cover a wide range of issues and involve States from every continent. We appreciate the remarkable efforts made by the Court in efficiently managing these cases, which involve, in procedural terms, many phases and, in substantive terms, growing factual and legal complexity. The latest judgment of the Court, in the case Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), rendered on 3 February, is a true milestone in the development of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Among other things, it provides useful clarification of the terms of article 2 of the Convention, in particular regarding actus reus and dolus specialis of the crime of genocide. We also commend the Court’s rigorous process in reaching decisions, which contributes to increasing confidence in the Court and in the international dispute settlement system in general. As such, the Court has played a key role in the peaceful settlement of inter-State disputes and in strengthening respect for the rule of law at the international level, which are important to the maintenance of international peace and security. (spoke in French) As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court plays a unique role in the progressive development of international law. Over the years, its impressive case law has brought greater clarity in different areas of international law. Thailand has followed with great interest the Court’s case law in the areas of border delimitation, maritime boundaries and the interpretation of treaties and judgements, just to name a few. This year, we noted that a new case involving economic rights was presented to the Court, which will further diversify the issues before it and underscore its role as a court of general jurisdiction. We look forward to commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the International Court of Justice, in April 2016. It will be an excellent opportunity to celebrate and reflect on the work done by the Court to date. In conclusion, we welcome efforts to promote transparency in the conduct of the work of the Court. For years the Court has successfully used technology to facilitate access to information regarding its procedures, rulings and judgments through recordings that are broadcast live or on demand and online data on case documentation. That has helped to significantly increase understanding of international law and the work of the Court. Let me conclude by expressing our gratitude to all the Judges, the Registrar and the Registry staff for their dedication to the work of the Court and the maintenance of peace, justice and the rule of law within the international community.

The Sudan associates itself with the statements made by the representative of Iran, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and the representative of South Africa, on behalf of the African Group. My delegation takes note of the report of the Secretary-General (A/70/327) and the report of the International Court of Justice (A/70/4). We would also like to thank the President of the Court, Mr. Ronny Abraham, for presenting the report on the activities of the Court during the most recent reporting period. Considering that the International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, my delegation also wishes to thank the Court for the role it plays, as stipulated by the Charter of the United Nations, in enhancing the rule of law at the international level through its judgments and advisory opinions and its contribution to reinforcing the peaceful settlement of disputes. The role of the International Court of Justice is of crucial importance, and it has a very heavy workload. That requires Member States to provide further political support and additional financial resources so that it can fulfil its mandate. The annual report is an opportunity for the General Assembly to reiterate the importance of the role of the Court and to support its activities. The growing number of cases submitted to the Court reflects the trust we have in the Court and its ability to resolve disputes with integrity and impartiality and in a way that is acceptable to all the parties concerned. The Sudan encourages the Court to adopt the necessary measures to render it more capable of shouldering its responsibilities and settling disputes in a timely manner. My delegation also calls on the General Assembly to invite countries that have not recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court to do so, thereby contributing to reinforcing the rule of law at the international level. It would also enable the Court to fulfil its mandate as defined by the Charter of the United Nations. The Sudan also invites the Security Council, which has not sought an advisory opinion from the Court since 1970, to take advantage of the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and a source of advisory opinions that shed light on the principles of international law. We also call upon the General Assembly and the United Nations specialized agencies to seek advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice with regard to the interpretation of international legal principles that pertain to their respective mandates. In conclusion, the Sudan reiterates the importance of the role played by the International Court of Justice, and we express our support to the Court in the fulfilment of its mandate.

At the outset, allow me to welcome the President of the International Court of Justice and the members of the Court who are present here today at this meeting. The Plurinational State of Bolivia thanks the International Court of Justice for its report (A/70/4) covering the period from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2015. We also thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Ronny Abraham, for presenting the report to the Assembly. Bolivia, as a peaceful State, abides by the Charter of the United Nations and the principles on which the International Court of Justice is established. Its jurisdiction is a permanent call to dialogue between nations that are neighbours and sisters. The Court, its principles and its purposes open up new opportunities for resolving our differences. The Plurinational State of Bolivia is convinced that the International Court of Justice is one of the best means for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States. Bolivia urges all States to honour in good faith the jurisdiction and judgments of the Court, in conformity with the provisions of Charter of the United Nations. Bolivia also requests that we uphold what is established in resolution 67/1, by which the States Members of the United Nations reaffirmed their obligation to resolve disputes through peaceful means, including through judicial settlement. In that same spirit, we wish to recall the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, which provides that recourse to judicial settlement does not imply an act of enmity between States. The fact that the Court’s list includes contentious cases from across all continents, as the report states, is a clear demonstration of its universal jurisdiction and the recognition that it enjoys. The professionalism, independence and integrity with which the judges of the Court deliver their decisions, thereby justifying the trust placed in the Court by the States members of the United Nations system, has enabled it to strengthen its most important undertaking, which is to establish a universal court of justice for States. It is also important for me to stress that the Bolivian delegation supports the need to allocate adequate budgetary resources for the functioning of the Court and to do so in a timely manner. We would like to underscore the effort made by the Court to disseminate its achievements, especially as it prepares activities to celebrate its seventieth anniversary, in April 2016. Bolivia endorses the appeal made by the General Assembly, through resolution 69/123, which calls on “States that have not yet done so to consider accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with its Statute” (resolution 69/123, seventh preambular paragraph). Moreover, Bolivia also respectfully urges States that currently recognize the jurisdiction of the Court not to abandon the Court. They are sending signals that indicate a peaceful vocation and respect for international law, security and justice. In the case brought by the Plurinational State of Bolivia against the Republic of Chile, which was recently accepted by the Court, as was stated already by President Evo Morales, we repeat that Bolivia envisages only one way of resolving outstanding issues, namely, through negotiation and the peaceful means established by international law. Finally, Bolivia reaffirms and reiterates its commitment to peace in the resolution of conflicts and reiterates its faithful attachment to the principles of international law and the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It is not might that makes right; it is reasonable laws that right injustices.

I would like to start by thanking President Ronny Abraham of the International Court of Justice for his leadership and the comprehensive report (A/70/4) on the work of the Court. I am also grateful to the Netherlands for hosting a side event on the Court with the presence of His Majesty King Willem-Alexander on 29 September. The Court was born in 1945, on the very same day as the United Nations, and began its work the following year. The fact that the Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations and that the Court is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations is a strong reminder of why the United Nations was established 70 years ago. The United Nations was created to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to maintain international peace and stability through the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Court is the only international court which has universal jurisdiction in terms of the number of States parties to the Statute of the Court and the diversity of the subject matters it deals with. All questions of an international legal nature can be submitted to it. All States Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. From 1947 until today, 161 cases have been entered in the General List of the Court and 149 cases have been resolved. Those achievements demonstrate that the Court has played a constructive role in the field of the peaceful settlement of international disputes for seven decades. It is not an overstatement to assert that the path the Court has taken to date constitutes the core history of the promotion of the rule of law by the United Nations in international relations. In that context, I wish to repeat the plea of my Government that more States should recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. On the other hand, today the international community enjoys the benefits of the remarkable development of various peaceful means of dispute settlement other than the Court, such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, arbitral tribunals, international investment tribunals and the World Trade Organization dispute-settlement system. Japan welcomes the current trend of States utilizing such peaceful means of dispute settlement, depending on specific situations. We hope that the effectiveness of international law will be further strengthened in a coherent manner. The rule of law and peaceful settlement of international disputes are fundamental principles of Japan’s foreign policy. In its bilateral relations with other Member States, Japan explores the possibilities of peacefully settling disputes through the International Court of Justice. Japan not only abides by the Court’s decisions in cases in which Japan was a party, but also respects the jurisprudence of the Court in other cases. That is because we adhere to the principle of the rule of law.

Allow me to express our appreciation to the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Ronny Abraham, for his introduction of the exhaustive report on the activities of the Court during the period from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2015 (A/70/4). (spoke in English) My delegation aligns itself with the statements made by the Permanent Representative of South Africa on behalf of the Group of African States and by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. The growing responsibility of the International Court of Justice in promoting international peace and security is undeniable, particularly through the fulfilment of its mandate and its role in the peaceful settlement of disputes, in conformity with the rules of international law and the principles of justice. Indeed, despite the establishment of many specialized jurisdictions at the international and regional levels to address many emerging issues, the International Court of Justice remains the only jurisdiction that enjoys universality. The Court has a unique position within the international legal framework, given the fact that it was established by the Charter of the United Nations as the principal judicial organ of the Organization. The Court’s work has grown significantly in factual and legal complexity throughout the years. The Court has been entrusted with resolving many contentious cases from all over the world, involving a wide range of subjects, such as territorial and maritime disputes, environmental damage, violations of territorial integrity, the right to self-determination of peoples under foreign occupation, violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, and many other matters. Moreover, despite the increasing complexity of the cases and the considerable growth of the workload of the Registry over the past 20 years, we commend the Court for its efficient response to those new challenges. We encourage the Court to pursue its efforts to further strengthen measures already taken. In that regard, my delegation reiterates its full support for the Court’s key role in ensuring the implementation of the provisions of international law, adjudicating disputes between States and providing advisory opinions to them and to international organizations on how best to assume their roles and functions. In that respect, we would like to emphasize the importance for all States, without exception, to abide by their legal obligations and comply with the decisions of the International Court of Justice in cases to which they are parties. It is also important for the United Nations, particularly the Security Council and the specialized agencies, to request advisory opinions on legal questions, when needed, from the International Court of Justice. The high moral and legal value of the Court’s advisory opinions would certainly promote both international peace and security and the rule of law. As such, there is an urgent need for the international community to insist on full compliance with the Court’s advisory opinions. In that context, we strongly encourage respect for all advisory opinions and legal provisions delivered by the Court. Respect for international law will reinforce the rule of law and thereby contribute to strengthening global peace and security. We take this opportunity to recognize the key role played by the Court in maintaining and promoting the rule of law throughout the world. In fact, by fulfilling its two main functions, as mandated by the Charter of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice has contributed over the past seven decades to the development and codification of the rules of international law and consolidated the principles of justice and equality at the international level. Finally, my delegation commends all the efforts made to date in that regard, and reaffirms its confidence in the Court’s ability to carry out its mission, using the same meticulous and impartial methods with a high level of effectiveness.

As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice makes a crucial contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security by ensuring that international disputes are settled by peaceful means and in accordance with international law. Germany reaffirms its strong support for the Court. In our view, two aspects are of special importance if we are to preserve the role of the Court and to enhance its contribution to the peaceful solution of international disputes even further. First, with regard to compliance, as States Members of the United Nations it is in our common interest to preserve the premise underlying the very idea of the peaceful settlement of international disputes by judicial means, namely, the obligations of the parties to a dispute to implement the judgements delivered by a competent judicial organ, in particular by the International Court of Justice. Unfortunately, compliance is still far from universal. We must all be very clear in that regard. Compliance with the decisions of international courts and tribunals is not a question of courtesy; it is a legal obligation incumbent on the parties. In the case of the International Court of Justice, that obligation is unequivocally stipulated in paragraph 1 of Article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations itself. It is a long- established principle of public international law that domestic law must be adapted to a State’s obligations deriving from international law and cannot provide any justification for violating the latter. Secondly, on the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, in our view one of the best ways for any State to foster the peaceful settlement of international disputes by judicial means is by recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory by making a declaration to that effect under paragraph 2 of article 36 of the Court’s Statute. Germany made such a declaration in 2008. Unfortunately, as of today, only 72 declarations are in force. Many States Members of the United Nations thus still do not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory. I call on those States to do their part to help the International Court of Justice perform its important functions in the peaceful settlement of international disputes yet more effectively.

The delegation of France wishes to thank President Abraham for his very informative, complete and clear introduction of the annual report (A/70/4) on the activities of the International Court of Justice for the judicial year that just ended. As highlighted in the list of cases on the docket of the Court, its litigation activity has increased remarkably over the past 20 years, demonstrating both the confidence of States in the institution of the Court and its role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations in the search for the peaceful settlement of disputes and strengthening the rule of law. At least 12 legal proceedings pending before the Court attest to that, as does the fact that over the past year, the Court has delivered two judgments — one on the merits and the other on preliminary objections — and eight rulings. While the judgments and orders delivered by the Court are binding on the parties by dint of the authority on the subject under review, States’ respect for and due enforcement also reflect the high quality of the Court’s decisions. The judgments and rulings of the Court may thus contribute to easing political tensions and help States to find a solution that other peaceful means for the settlement of disputes do not provide. The past year was marked by the re-election of one third of the Judges of the Court. In that regard, we offer our very warm congratulations to its new members. The French delegation also wishes to welcome the election of Judge Ronny Abraham to the position of President of the Court. The French delegation recalls that, as emphasized by President Abraham, the use of two languages, English and French, in the work of the Court helps to improve the quality and precision of the jurisprudence of the Court. It should be stressed that it is languages that actually ensure balance among the different juridical systems participating in the formation of international law. I take this opportunity, on behalf of France, to again offer the members of the Court, the Registrar and all its staff our profound gratitude for the work carried this year, the seventieth anniversary year of the Court, which this year again bears testimony to its sustained and effective activity, executed, as we know, with limited means.

Cuba associates itself with the statement made by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement. The Republic of Cuba thanks President Ronny Abraham for introducing the report on the International Court of Justice (A/70/4). We also wish at this rostrum to express our commitment to the strict application of international law and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. My delegation has recognized the work of the Court since its inception. Its decisions and advisory opinions have been of particular importance not only to the cases submitted for its consideration but also to the development of international law. The volume of cases under the consideration of that forum, many of which relate to Latin America and the Caribbean, demonstrate the importance that the international community attaches to the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Republic of Cuba favours the peaceful settlement of disputes, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Charter, and has declared its prior consent to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Cuba regrets the failure of some Court decisions to be executed, in clear violation of Article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations, which establishes that every Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party. In that regard, the Republic of Cuba notes with concern that the effectiveness and enforceability of the Court’s decisions can be subject to reasonable criticism when certain countries do not recognize judgments unfavourable to themselves. Unfortunately, the refusal of these States to comply with the decisions handed down and their obstruction of the United Nations mechanisms to enforce the judgments, such as resort to the privilege of the veto in the Security Council, demonstrate the flaws in the mechanisms of the Court to execute its decisions. This demonstrates that the necessity of reforming the United Nations system, in order to give developing countries greater assurances vis-à-vis more powerful nations, also applies to the seat of the International Court of Justice. My delegation believes that it would be helpful for the Court to conduct a critical evaluation of its relationship to the organs of the United Nations generally and the Security Council in particular. The International Court of Justice has handled many significant cases, and Cuba considers the unanimous advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons to be extremely important. In its opinion, the Court concluded that an obligation exists to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations aimed at achieving nuclear disarmament in all its aspects through strict and effective international controls. In that context, and as others have done before us, Cuba urges full acknowledgement of the Court’s advisory opinion of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, and calls on all States to respect and ensure respect for the Court’s provisions on that important matter. Cuba considers it very important that the International Court of Justice be allocated sufficient budgetary resources to enable it to properly carry out its work of settling the disputes under its jurisdiction by peaceful means, and we have urged that we work to ensure that the Court receives appropriate resources in a timely fashion. The Republic of Cuba is grateful to the Court for the publications it makes available to Governments and for its online resources, which are valuable for studying and disseminating international public law, particularly for developing countries, which are often denied information related to advances in international law owing to obsolete and ridiculous embargo policies that have been overwhelmingly rejected by the international community. Cuba is a peaceful country that respects international law, and it has always faithfully met its international obligations arising from treaties to which it is party. We wish to take this opportunity to reiterate our commitment to peace. Th events of recent years have been irrefutable evidence of the importance of the International Court of Justice as an international body for settling disputes of major significance to the international community peacefully, in good faith and in accordance with international law.

At the outset, my delegation would like to express its appreciation for the report (A/70/4) of the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Ronny Abraham, on the work of the Court during the past year. It shows that during the reporting period the Court accomplished a great deal on issues raised by a number of States, particularly concerning incidental proceedings and new applications. We also carefully studied the judgment handed down in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia). In keeping with the provisions of its Statute, the Court exercises jurisdiction over cases referred to it under terms recognized by the States and in accordance with the principle of voluntary jurisdiction. In exercising that jurisdiction, the Court applies international law as indicated in article 38 of the Statute, which sees international conventions as the heart of States’ expression of their will and as a fundamental pillar of international relations, a pillar also recognized in the Charter of the United Nations itself. Among the core principles guiding Chile’s foreign policy, articulated in multiple forums and instruments, is the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Another of our basic foreign-policy principles is the essential role of respect for international treaties as the foundation that peaceful, stable and cooperative relations among States are built on. The importance that my country attaches to treaties is particularly applicable to those that establish borders between States. Ensuring that they are strictly observed and remain stable over time is a prerequisite for peaceful relations between nations. They cannot be revised through unilateral actions, nor can their revision be imposed on a State. We have recently been apprised of the Court’s judgment on Chile’s preliminary objection raised in the case before the Court concerning the Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile). In the judgment, the Court ruled that, even assuming that the existence of an obligation to negotiate were to be established, a matter that would be the subject of proceedings on the merits, it would not be for the Court to predetermine the outcome of any negotiation that would take place in consequence of that obligation. Furthermore, the freedom of the parties to initiate negotiations cannot be limited by alleged obligations that are devoid of any legal substance. Considering the Court’s role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and its wide-ranging mission both in contentious cases and in the framework of advisory opinions, my delegation would like to once again express its support for the importance of having at its disposal a complete version of the Court’s judgments and advisory opinions in Spanish, which will enhance awareness of its rulings and ultimately contribute to the dissemination of international law in the broadest sense and adding to efforts that have already been made in that regard.

Peru is grateful for the introduction by Judge Ronny Abraham, President of the International Court of Justice, of the Court’s annual report for the period from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2015 (A/70/4). I would like to begin my statement by emphasizing the fundamental role played in the peaceful settlement of disputes by the International Court of Justice, as the principal judicial body of the United Nations and as established in the Charter of the United Nations. Its work is an essential contribution to the promotion of the rule of law at the international level. We also note that besides that valuable function, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter, the Court’s advisory opinion may be requested by the General Assembly, the Security Council and other organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations. Those are the two areas covered by the International Court of Justice. Through its judgments and opinions, it helps to promote and clarify international law as a true pathway to peace. For all those reasons, Peru would like to point out that the General Assembly has once again urged States that have not yet done so to consider the possibility of recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 36 of its Statute. Having said this, Peru would like to recognize the work carried out by the eminent judges of the Court, in particular the President and Vice-President, as well as the ad hoc judges. By the same token, we would like to put on record our gratitude for the considerable work carried out by the Registry of the Court, in particular by the Registrar and Deputy Registrar. The sustained level of work of the International Court of Justice is an expression of the prestige enjoyed by that principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Indeed, thanks to the Court’s efforts, Peru has been able to peacefully resolve its last outstanding border issue. The Court’s high level of work can be explained, inter alia, by the significant number of measures adopted in recent years to increase its effectiveness and allow it to absorb the ongoing increase in workload, including through a speedier processing of the increasing judicial proceedings. Peru welcomes the Court’s decision to celebrate its seventieth anniversary through various events, especially in April 2016, which my delegation and especially our Embassy in The Hague fully support. We would also like to commend the host country of the Court, the Netherlands, for its constant commitment and support to the work of the Court and to strengthening its cooperation with the principal organs in New York. In that connection, my delegation followed with interest the visit to the Court, in August 2014, by the representatives of States members of the Security Council. We believe that such visits can be important for ensuring a good relationship between the Court and the Security Council. In reaffirming our recognition of the Court for the contribution it has made and continues to make to the peaceful settlement of disputes among States, I should like to take advantage of this historic seventieth session to pay tribute to José Luis Bustamante y Rivero, Peruvian jurist and diplomat, former President of Peru and former President of the International Court of Justice, who also directly contributed to the achievement of its noble goals.

It is with particular honour and pleasure that the Republic of Cyprus addresses the General Assembly today with regard to the report (A/70/4) of the International Court of Justice. The Republic of Cyprus attaches great importance to the role and work of the International Court of Justice and to the settlement of disputes by peaceful means in conformity with justice and international law, as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations. This occasion offers us the opportunity to commend the Court on its significant work and to pay tribute and convey our respect to President Judge Ronny Abraham and its members, who serve the Court with dedication and distinction. We are, once again, grateful to the President for his introduction of the report and for his insightful remarks on the work and functioning of the Court. In the role of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the work of the International Court of Justice bears utmost importance for the promotion of the rule of law, for friendly relations among States and for international peace and security. This role can be best achieved through the universal acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, as recommended by resolution 69/123. The Court’s jurisdiction over disputes has influenced and shaped international law through the peaceful resolution of disputes. With trust in the Court’s capacity to deliver justice, in 2002 the Republic of Cyprus made a declaration for the recognition of compulsory jurisdiction. To date, we are one of 72 countries in the world that have done so. We call upon States to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with the article 36 of the Statute, thereby promoting and facilitating the International Court of Justice’s ability to maintain and promote the rule of law throughout the world. It is now widely recognized that the peaceful settlement of disputes within the framework of the Charter requires an integrated and coordinated approach, combining more than one category of strategies of dispute resolution. A welcome development in that regard is the continued and increased recourse to the International Court of Justice, in parallel with other methods of dispute resolution, thereby emphasizing the role of the Court in the United Nations system for the maintenance of peace and security. In particular, the decisions of the International Court of Justice have contributed significantly to the development of the law of the sea, which is of particular importance to the Republic of Cyprus. Our delegation underscores the steps taken by the Court to enhance its efficiency in handling cases. Effective management is pivotal, considering the Court’s increased caseload. We are pleased to note that the 12 cases currently entered in the Court’s list reflect the geographic diversity. The cases come from various regions of the world and cover diverse international law subjects. We would like to briefly address key cases of the Court during the past year. Of particular importance are the current contentious proceedings relating to issues of sovereignty over disputed territories, international law obligations to negotiate in good faith and maritime delimitation disputes. The ruling in the case of Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) is of importance as the issue before the Court is to adjudge upon the sovereignty of the disputed territory and territorial integrity. The pronouncements of the International Court of Justice relating to issues of occupation and territorial integrity are central to international peace and security. Moreover, the developments in cases centred on an obligation to negotiate are also important. I would like to conclude by reiterating the support of Cyprus for the work of the International Court of Justice and expressing gratitude for its role in promoting the rule of law and its active role in shaping international law.

The Philippines would like to thank President Ronny Abraham and the entire team at The Hague for their comprehensive report on the work of the International Court of Justice in the past year (A/70/4). We subscribe to the statement of the Non-Aligned Movement delivered by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The world Court peacefully resolves sovereign disputes that cannot otherwise be resolved by or through the political organs of the United Nations. As we commemorate this year the seventieth anniversary of the United Nations, its principal judicial organ continues to play a vital role in supporting peace and security, human rights and development, not through armies, but through the rule of law. Three years ago, we affirmed the Court’s essential contribution to the rule of law in paragraph 31 of our landmark consensus declaration of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the rule of law at the national and international levels (resolution 67/1). The Philippines today reaffirms both its support for that declaration and its duty to comply with the decisions of the Court in contentious cases. We renew our call on Member States that have not yet done so to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. In the period under review, the Court was seized of 12 cases. The gamut of subjects covered the big issues of our time, attesting to the Court’s stature as the only international court of a universal character with general jurisdiction. Those include territorial and maritime disputes; unlawful use of force; interference in the domestic affairs of States; the violation of territorial integrity and sovereignty; economic rights; international humanitarian and human rights law; genocide and environmental damage to and conservation of living resources. The sovereign parties in these cases come from all over the world. Almost half of the cases are from the Americas and a third are from Africa. Their example contributes to the progressive development of international law and encourages the rest of us to put our trust in international adjudication, including by the Court. Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Charter of the United Nations reminds us of our primary duty “to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”. That is the rationale for the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (resolution 37/10, annex). To this day, many delegations recognize the Declaration as a major achievement of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization. The Manila Declaration was negotiated and adopted by the General Assembly during the Cold War, when many non-aligned countries were consolidating their political and economic independence. It supported their aspirations by articulating the norms of the peaceful settlement of disputes, as outlined in Chapter VI of the Charter. To illustrate our point, between 1947, when the Court began considering its first contentious case, the Corfu Channel case, and the adoption in 1982 of the Manila Declaration — a span of 35 years — it dealt with fewer than 50 contentious cases. Since then, in a shorter period of time, its caseload has increased and it has taken on more than 80 contentious cases. The growing confidence of Member States, especially developing countries, in the Court’s capabilities, credibility and impartiality in the settlement of disputes by peaceful means is not unrelated to the norms, values and aspirations articulated in the Manila Declaration, of which the most fundamental is the non-use or threat of use of force. The Manila Declaration reflects the international community’s increasing reliance on the rule of law as a cornerstone not only of the peaceful settlement of disputes, but also for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Philippines would like to reiterate that only through the rule of law in international relations can we guarantee the respect, order and stability that we, the peoples of the United Nations, seek. We believe that contemporary international legal architecture has strengthened the Court as the only forum for resolving justiciable disputes between States related to the vast field of general international law. If there is anything that the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute, jurisprudence and experience of the Court can all teach us, it is that small nations should have no fear of the big Powers if their cause is just, and that through the work of the Court and other international courts and tribunals, including arbitral tribunals, the rule of law in international relations has a chance to prevail. In closing, we reiterate our call on the Security Council to consider Article 96 of the Charter more seriously and to make greater use of the Court as a source of advisory opinions and of interpretation of the relevant norms of international law, particularly on the most current and controversial issues affecting international peace and security.

I would like to thank the President for convening this important meeting to consider the report of the International Court of Justice (A/70/4). Nigeria is grateful to Judge Ronny Abraham, the President of the Court, for his comprehensive briefing and remarks. We also congratulate him on his election in February to the presidency of the Court. Nigeria aligns itself with the statements delivered earlier today by the Permanent Representative of South Africa, on behalf of the Group of African States, and by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Nigeria maintains a special relationship with the International Court of Justice. Three of our eminent jurists and statesmen have served as members of the Court in previous years. We have also had occasion to defer to the Court’s ruling on matters related to our border differences with a neighbouring State. We therefore believe that the Court has a central place in the administration of international justice and in promoting the rule of law, and respect for the rule of law, at the international level. We also believe that its rulings enhance the sovereignty of States. We have studied the Court’s report covering the period from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2015 and have taken note of the Court’s activities during the reporting period. We believe it provides insights into the essential working methods of the Court. We commend the Court for the measures it has taken in recent years to enhance its efficiency, facilitating effective management of its steadily increasing workload. The number of cases adjudicated by the Court, their diversity in terms of subject matter and the fact that they emanate from every region of the world attest to the Court’s increasing relevance, both as an organ and an instrument for the peaceful settlement of disputes. We note that in recent years the Court has moved to publish its decisions using modern information and communications technology. We also welcome its new engagement with the public. Such efforts help to promote greater transparency in the Court’s activities. We look forward to participating in the events the Court is planning to mark its seventieth anniversary, in April next year. However, we noticed in the report that no request was made for advisory opinions during the period under review. We therefore urge that more use be made of the Court for advisory opinions on sundry issues. Indeed, the importance of advisory opinions on legal questions referred to the Court in the pursuit of peaceful settlement of disputes cannot be overemphasized. According to paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, States are expected to make declarations recognizing the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. However, Nigeria notes that of the 193 States Members of the United Nations, only 72 — less than half the membership — have so far made declarations recognizing that jurisdiction. Nigeria would like to see more countries accept it, in consonance with resolution 69/123. In that regard, we encourage Member States that have yet to subscribe to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court to endeavour to do so. That, we believe, would further strengthen the Court’s role and ability to promote international justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Finally, Nigeria will continue to abide by its commitment to promoting international justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes, as a State party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice and having made a declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. We encourage all Member States to continue to support the activities of the Court in order to promote international justice and the rule of law.

We greatly appreciate the work of the International Court of Justice as the principal international judicial body of the United Nations system. We congratulate Judge Ronny Abraham on his election as President of the Court and thank him for his detailed report (A/70/4). It is clear that States continue to actively present their disputes for adjudication by the International Court of Justice, demonstrating their high level of trust in it. In many cases the Court’s judicial standards and expert opinions have become reference points for States’ political and legal decisions. Thanks to its dedicated efforts, the International Court of Justice has maintained a high level of momentum in its work for many years, and has achieved that while dealing with the greatly expanded scope of its cases, cited in the report for their increased complexity and numbers. The Court continues to consider disputes concerning the delimitation of land and maritime areas, a theme that has always been present in current affairs. However, today the dossier of the Court also includes cases related to economic rights, environmental damage, disarmament, international humanitarian law and other issues. We note the fact that during the reporting period the Court has rendered judgments on a large number of decisions on various issues, including a decision on the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), which the Court has been considering since 1999. We welcome the efforts the International Court of Justice has been making to improve the effectiveness of its work, under increasingly pressured conditions, as well as to maintain the pace of its proceedings. As the report rightly notes, the Court plays a key role in the maintenance and promotion of the rule of law all over the world. The widespread dissemination of knowledge about the work of the Court plays an important part in this, achieved by ensuring the broadest possible distribution of the Court’s decisions, the development of multimedia platforms and the Court’s work with educational institutions. In 2016, the International Court of Justice will be 70 years old. We believe that the events dedicated to the anniversary will be an excellent opportunity to once again draw attention to the meaning and role of this key institution in the system for the peaceful settlement of disputes.