A/78/PV.27 General Assembly

Luxembourg fully endorses the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union (see A/78/PV.20). Allow me to add to it with some considerations in my national capacity. I thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Joan E. Donoghue, for her annual report on the activities of the Court (see A/78/4) and for her presence at the General Assembly last week (see A/78/PV.20). The period under consideration was marked by sustained activity by the Court, which delivered four judgments. The large number of pending cases before the Court and the recent increase in its workload, in a wide variety of disputes, demonstrate its crucial role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. The geographical distribution of the cases brought before the Court and the diversity of their subject matter illustrate the universal and general nature of its jurisdiction. I would like to reaffirm Luxembourg’s unwavering support for the International Court of Justice in its role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations under its Charter. It is now more important than ever to uphold the principles and values enshrined in the Charter and international law. Through its work, the Court makes a concrete contribution to the promotion of the rule of law. Luxembourg welcomes the Court’s efforts to ensure the proper administration of justice. The adoption of demanding schedules of hearings and deliberations enables the Court to consider multiple cases at the same time and to hear any related incidental proceedings as soon as possible. Interventions before the Court are particularly important in the context of multilateral instruments, since the interpretation made by the Court in the context of a dispute before it constitutes a precedent that is binding on the other parties. The role of the Court is all the more essential in that regard when it comes to peremptory norms, which involve the integrity of the international legal order as a whole. It is therefore logical that, in such situations, States that are not parties to the dispute but have an interest in compliance with the norms of international law in question may intervene before the Court. The Government of Luxembourg has submitted written observations in the case Allegations of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). The case between Ukraine and Russia concerning allegations of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide seeks to establish, inter alia, that Russia has no legal basis to undertake unilateral military action against Ukraine on the basis of non-proven allegations of genocide. My country’s commitment to the International Court of Justice is not limited to Ukraine. We recently submitted a written statement to the Court in respect of the Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. That intervention is part of Luxembourg’s long-standing support for a just and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of the two-State solution, with the State of Israel and an independent, democratic Palestinian State living side by side in peace, security and mutual recognition. While all the other principal organs of the United Nations have given due consideration to climate change, the Court has not yet had a chance to do so. The request for an advisory opinion submitted this year by the General Assembly in its resolution 77/276 is a historic opportunity for the Court to clarify the legal obligations of States in the area of climate change and to encourage the international community to continue to take ambitious and effective measures to combat climate change. The Court’s contribution to the development of international law is unquestionable. However, its contribution to the judiciary resolution of disputes can be effective only if the parties to a dispute ensure the immediate and full implementation of the judgments and decisions of the Court. Selective implementation represents a step back in terms of the rule of law. Luxembourg urges all States that have submitted cases to the Court to comply with its judgments and with any decision of the Court indicating provisional measures. We also would like to stress that obligation, in particular in the context of the war of aggression conducted by Russia against Ukraine, and we urge Russia to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice of 16 March 2022.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the States members of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (CPLP): Brazil, Cabo Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique, Portugal, Sao Tome and Principe, Timor-Leste and my own country, Angola. The CPLP was created as a multilateral forum for deepening cooperation and fostering mutual friendship among countries sharing the Portuguese language. The CPLP’s cooperation with the United Nations began in 1996 and is periodically reviewed. The CPLP is governed, among other things, by the principles that enshrine the primacy of peace, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and social justice. Indeed, the rule of law played an important role in the constitution and progress of the CPLP. We are grateful to the Honourable Judge Joan E. Donoghue, President of the International Court of Justice, for presenting the Court’s annual report (A/78/4) and for her insightful remarks (see A/78/PV.20). The CPLP fully acknowledges the key role played by the Court during the 77 years since its inaugural sitting in ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes and in clarifying the rules of international law on which its decisions are based with integrity, impartiality and independence, as well as its readiness to face any challenges that may arise. We commend the work of the Court as the main judicial organ of the United Nations in adjudicating disputes among States and in maintaining and promoting the rule of law in the international system. We appreciate the fact that the Court adjusted its working methods in response to the coronavirus disease pandemic by relying on videoconferencing technology and data-processing services to enable it to continue performing its judicial functions. The CPLP countries are certain that with the resumption of pre-pandemic working methods, the Court will increase its capacity for action to face the challenges, whatever they may be. In the past two decades, the Court’s workload has grown considerably, and the flow of new and settled cases reflects its great vitality. The CPLP countries value the fact that the Court must decide on disputes voluntarily submitted by States, under their sovereign right. We further acknowledge that the cases submitted to the Court have been growing in factual and legal complexity. As such, from 1 August 2022 to 31 July 2023, the period under review, the Court experienced a high level of activity, being seized of a variety of issues related to territorial and maritime delimitation, diplomatic missions, human rights, reparation for internationally wrongful acts, the interpretation and application of international treaties and conventions, as well as environmental protection, and by handing down judgments and public hearings by video link and subsequently in hybrid format. The increase in the Court’s workload attests to the importance of its jurisdiction to the international community. All States Members of the United Nations are parties to the Statute of the Court, and approximately 300 bilateral and multilateral treaties confer jurisdiction to the Court over the settlement of disputes that may arise from their interpretation and application. Moreover, 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. In that regard, the rulings and advisory opinions issued by the Court have made a meaningful contribution to strengthening and clarifying the rules of international law. Likewise, we welcome the Court’s endeavours to ensure that its decisions are publicized as widely as possible through its publications, the development of multimedia platforms, the use of social media networks and its own Internet website, which contains its entire jurisprudence, which contributes to a better knowledge of and raising awareness concerning its activities. The high rate of compliance with the Court’s judgments throughout its history is very encouraging, as it demonstrates the respect and trust of States in the independence, credibility and impartiality of the world Court. The CPLP member States welcome the widening of the scope of and cooperation on international law, as the Court’s judgments and advisory opinions have inspired other international decision-making bodies. It is also commendable that the Court is similarly giving due regard to the work of other international courts and tribunals. We pledge our strong support to the Court in its ongoing fundamental role in settling disputes between States as well as in strengthening the international rule of law towards justice and peace. The CPLP member States remain confident that the Court, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, will continue its fundamental work in accordance with the stipulations of the Charter of the United Nations and its Statute and to make a tangible contribution to the rule of law throughout the world. Finally, on behalf of the nine States members of the CPLP, I would like to convey our most sincere gratitude for the work of the International Court of Justice.

I have the honour to speak today on behalf of the three Baltic States — Estonia, Latvia and my own country, Lithuania. The Baltic States align themselves with the statement made by the European Union and its member States. First, we would like to thank President Joan E. Donoghue for presenting the report of the International Court of Justice covering the period from 1 August 2022 to 31 July 2023 (A/78/4) (see A/78/PV.20). The Baltic States welcome the report and commend the important work of the Court. The issues that the Court is facing are global in nature and concern environmental protection, terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking, environmental protection and globalization. There has also been a widening geographical representation of the States addressing the Court. The report of the Court clearly illustrates that States having recourse to the International Court of Justice are confident that the Court, with its universal character, unique mandate, impartiality and integrity, high legal standards, vast expertise and comprehensive jurisprudence, as well as the authoritative value of its decisions, is a pillar of the rules-based international order and plays a vital role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. Relying on its authority in the international community, the Court continues to play a fundamental role in the prevention and settlement of international disputes between States pacifically as well as developing international law, advancing the rule of law globally and directly contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security. The contribution of the Court is also crucial to maintaining the health of planet Earth as we witness the dramatic consequences of climate change. The international community is therefore looking forward to the legal guidance of the Court on issues concerning the obligations of States enshrined in international environmental law. We would therefore like to express our appreciation for the dedicated daily work of the Court, its judges and all its staff and to welcome the Court’s ongoing efforts in improving its procedures and working methods. We reiterate our strong support for the pre-eminent role of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. We firmly believe that the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes and respect for international law must be the main guidance for the conduct of all States, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, we consider that further acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court needs to be enhanced and call on the remaining States Members of the United Nations that have not yet done so to accept the jurisdiction of the Court with a view to broadening its universal reach. We the Baltic States remain confident that the Court will continue to successfully perform its crucial mandate in ensuring justice and contributing to stability and peace in the world. The war of aggression of Russia against Ukraine very poignantly demonstrates the need of the Court to deliver on its mandate. It is noteworthy that the International Court of Justice’s rulings entail significant and far-reaching consequences, and we commend the fact that the vast majority of the Court’s rulings are implemented by the parties to a dispute and recognized by third States. However, in certain cases the lack of enforcement power of the Court’s decisions remains an important factor. We believe that the international community, particularly in those situations where the Security Council is paralysed by the veto of one of its permanent members, should find ways to ensure that its decisions, including orders of the Court for provisional measures, are complied with. The most obvious example is the Court’s binding order on provisional measures of 16 March 2022, which orders Russia to immediately cease the military actions that it commenced on 24 February 2022 on the territory of Ukraine. Russia has not complied, as the war of aggression has been continuing for more than 20 months already. In that regard, we are in favour of initiatives to reform the Security Council, with a view to restraining the veto power of its permanent members when it concerns matters related to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. Such reform should also empower the Security Council with a strengthened role in supervising the execution of the decisions of the Court. The blocking by Russia of the Security Council’s attempt to address matters related to aggression reveals the limitations of the United Nations system and the need for it to be revitalized. We commend the Court for its ongoing efforts in improving its procedures and working methods. It is our strong belief that the further digitalization of its procedures and working methods deserves careful and in-depth consideration. The coronavirus disease pandemic has demonstrated the importance, necessity and utility of incorporating new technologies in many areas of our lives, including our justice systems. Technologies and digitalization can facilitate judicial procedures and the participation of the parties to the proceedings. Let me conclude by quoting the first President of the General Assembly, Paul-Henri Spaak: “I would not venture to assert that the International Court of Justice is the most important organ of the United Nations; but I think I may say that in any case is none more important.”

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries in connection with the consideration of agenda item 73, entitled “Report of the International Court of Justice”, to which we attach great importance. At the outset, allow us to thank the President of the International Court of Justice for her presentation to the General Assembly of the report (A/78/4) on the activities of the International Court from 1 August 2022 to 31 July 2023 (see A/78/PV.20), as requested by this body last year, of which we have taken due note. 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. In that context, the International Court of Justice has 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 in such a manner that international peace and security, as well as justice, are not endangered. At the ministerial meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in July 2023 in Baku, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Movement agreed to endeavour to make further progress to achieve full respect for international law and in that regard commended the role of the International Court of Justice 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. Noting the fact that the Security Council has not sought any advisory opinion from the international Court since 1970, the Non-Aligned Movement urges the Security Council to make greater use of the Court, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, as a source of advisory opinions and interpretation of international law. In that regard, at the ministerial meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in July 2019 in Caracas, the Ministers of the Movement decided to encourage those in a position to do so to make greater use of the International Court of Justice and to consider conducting consultations among the States members of the Movement, as and when appropriate, with a view to requesting advisory opinions of the Court, including in cases in which unilateral coercive measures that are not authorized by relevant organs of the United Nations and are inconsistent with the principles of international law or the Charter of the United Nations may undermine international peace and security. The Non-Aligned Movement takes this opportunity to invite the General Assembly and other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies that are duly authorized by the General Assembly to request advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. Moreover, the States members of the Movement reaffirm 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). In that matter, the International Court of Justice concluded unanimously 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. The Movement further continues to call on Israel, the occupying Power, to fully respect the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (A/ES-10/273). We call upon all States to respect and ensure respect for the provisions therein for the realization of the end of the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and the independence of the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital. I would now like to offer additional remarks in our national capacity. The report of the International Court of Justice refers to the pending cases in respect of Azerbaijan and Armenia regarding the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, including the Court’s orders indicating provisional measures. Azerbaijan instituted proceedings before the Court on 23 September 2021 to hold Armenia accountable for systematic violations of said Convention. The scale of the violations committed during Armenia’s 30-year aggression and occupation and after the end of the war in the fall of 2020 are shocking: tens of thousands of people were killed; more than 200,000 Azerbaijanis were expelled from their historical homeland in Armenia; all occupied territories were ethnically cleansed of more than 700,000 Azerbaijanis; hundreds of cities, towns and villages in my country were razed to the ground; and tremendous losses were inflicted on Azerbaijan’s cultural and religious heritage and the environment. Furthermore, Azerbaijan is now one of the countries most contaminated with landmines and other explosive devices, as Armenia planted hundreds of thousands of such mines and devices in the formerly occupied territories to deter Azerbaijani civilians from returning to their homes. It goes without saying that Armenia’s aggression and occupation of a large portion of Azerbaijan was not simply a war for territory. Rather, it was a war for ethnic purity in one of the most horrific campaigns of racial discrimination in recent history. In its application to the Court, Azerbaijan stated that that dispute arose because Armenia was engaged and continues to be engaged in a series of discriminatory acts against Azerbaijanis on the basis of their national or ethnic origin within the meaning of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and that Armenia’s policy and practice of anti-Azerbaijani discrimination are fuelled by ethno-nationalist goals of creating a mono-ethnic State composed exclusively of ethnic Armenians in Armenia and in portions of Azerbaijan’s sovereign territory. Azerbaijan further stated that Armenia’s policies and conduct of ethnic cleansing, cultural erasure and fomenting of hatred against Azerbaijanis systematically infringed on their rights and freedoms, in violation of the Convention, and asked the Court to hold Armenia accountable for its breaches and to redress the harm thereby visited on Azerbaijan and its people. In its provisional measures of 7 December 2021, the Court ordered Armenia to “take all necessary measures to prevent the incitement and promotion of racial hatred, including by organizations and private persons in its territory, targeted at persons of Azerbaijani national or ethnic origin” and to “refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve”. There is extensive evidence of Armenia’s non-compliance with those measures up to the present day. Armenia’s anti-Azerbaijan smear and hate campaign, along with its denial of the right of Azerbaijani refugees to return to their homes in Armenia, the continued erasure of Azerbaijani cultural heritage on its territory and the refusal to shed light on the fate of thousands of missing Azerbaijani citizens and disclose the locations of the landmines and other explosive devices it laid on the territory of Azerbaijan, clearly aggravates the dispute. Moreover, Armenia has refrained from condemning and punishing hate crimes, racist statements and incitement to violence against Azerbaijanis and not only failed to prohibit but also affirmatively cooperated with various ethno-nationalist groups inciting anti-Azerbaijani hatred and allowed the promotion of racial hatred in schools and the media. Armenia’s ongoing disinformation campaign is an illustration of how fast lies spread and can be used as ammunition for slanderous and destabilizing purposes. It is therefore important that the relevant stakeholders, if genuinely interested in the truth, evaluate claims with extreme caution and great reserve and rely on evidence that is fully conclusive and obtained by skilled examination. In the context of the cases before the Court, it is also critical to see the strong line that must be drawn between a dispute as to racial discrimination and a State’s right and responsibility to protect its people, react to the unlawful and increasing military presence of foreign troops and illegal armed formations on its territory and ensure criminal liability for serious breaches of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It is important that the international community remember and insist on accountability for the war that Armenia unleashed, the atrocity crimes that it committed and the large-scale ethnic cleansing and barbaric destruction that it carried out with the sole purpose of realizing its racially motivated territorial claims. Azerbaijan will continue its efforts to end impunity for serious violations of international law, promote the rule of law and build, strengthen and sustain peace and stability in the region.

The Group of Arab States would like to stress the importance of the role of the International Court of Justice, which was created as the judiciary branch of the United Nations to uphold and protect peace. The Court has been the guardian of international law for more than seven decades. It has played a role in the peaceful resolution of disputes among States and in providing advice to the various organs of the United Nations regarding urgent issues of international law. In that regard, the Arab Group would like to stress that the function of the Court has become even more important than in the past, given that the international legal order is facing many challenges in the post- war era. The Arab Group appreciates the role of the Court in resolving the legal disputes that are submitted to it by States and in handing down advisory opinions requested by United Nations organs regarding legal issues. In that regard, we commend the active role of the Court, which has considered many prominent cases and issued objective rulings and advisory opinions regarding the obligations of States on a number of varied matters. The Arab Group commends the report of the Court for the period 2022-2023 (A/78/4), on the role of the Court in strengthening the principle of the primacy of the rule of law as well as its valuable role in improving understanding among young people of international law and the judicial proceedings and training programmes offered by the Court. The Arab States would like to stress the need for States to abide by the decisions and opinions of the Court, given that its judges enjoy competency, impartiality and integrity. Regarding the current situation in Gaza, the Arab Group would like to recall the Court’s 2004 advisory opinion on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (A/ES- 10/273) and the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to respect the basic principles of international humanitarian law. The Arab Group would also stress the importance of resolution 77/247, which requests the Court to issue an advisory opinion regarding the legal impact of the continued violations by Israel on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, as well as the impact of its long-term occupation; the expansion of settlements; the measures it has taken that are aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem; and its violations of the historical and legal status of the holy sites of Jerusalem. On that basis, many Arab States and the League of Arab States have sent written pleadings to the Court on the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination and the need for Israel, the occupying Power, to respect the current legal and historical status quo in Jerusalem; to put an end to the occupation; and to remove settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including in East Jerusalem, as well as the need for the international community to put an end to Israel’s illegal unilateral measures, which undermine the prospects for peace. In conclusion, the Arab Group reaffirms the active role of the Court in ensuring stability and security in the world by means of its key role in resolving disputes by peaceful means. The Arab Group calls on States to contribute to maximizing the role of the Court by respecting and implementing its decisions and advisory opinions.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and its 57 member States are grateful to the President of the International Court of Justice for its report (A/78/4) and for the briefing before the General Assembly (A/78/PV.20). The principles and objectives of the Charter and the fundamental bases of international law are being undermined, risking the stability of the multilateral order and threatening the protection of generations of peoples from the scourge of war. The establishment of the Court was a watershed moment in the history of international law and international relations. The Court has always been and will remain the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Adherence to and respect for its judgments is necessary to ensure international peace and security. The OIC has supported and participated in the peaceful settlement of disputes, including on cases and advisory opinions before the Court, most notably in The Gambia v. Myanmar, as well as the advisory opinions on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (A/ES-10/273), in 2004, and recently on the question of Palestine, as requested by the General Assembly in its resolution 77/247. The OIC rejects Israel’s violations and wilful failure to uphold its responsibilities and obligations as stated in numerous United Nations resolutions, including the Court’s advisory opinion on the wall, which has led to a worsening situation on the ground. The OIC reaffirms its emphasis on the centrality of the Palestinian issue for the entire Islamic Ummah and supports the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, most notably their right to self-determination and the return of Palestinian refugees and their right to independence, and the realization of an independent and sovereign State of Palestine on the borders of 4 June 1967, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital. The OIC sent a submission to the Court on the General Assembly request concerning the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination and from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures. The OIC expresses its appreciation for the unprecedented participation by States and other international organizations, which confirms the importance and centrality of the question of Palestine to the United Nations and their commitment to the rule of law. In that regard, it has continued to encourage its member States and other international partners to submit their respective evidence during the ongoing hearing at the Court. In its submission the Court, the OIC reaffirmed that Israel was continuing to violate the Charter of the United Nations through its prolonged occupation, the building of settlements and the imposition of an apartheid regime, and it called for the determination of the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. Today we are witnessing the consequences of the impunity that Israel, the occupying Power, has enjoyed for 75 years. In that regard, the OIC condemns in the strongest terms Israel’s crimes, its acts of aggression against the occupied Palestinian territory and the heinous massacres perpetrated against civilians in Gaza Strip by the Israeli occupation forces, which have led to 9,155 civilian casualties, including 3,760 children. The OIC also warns of the danger of continuing the policy of the deliberate targeting of civilians and collective punishment accompanied by policies of starvation, water deprivation and the shutdown of the only power-generation station in the Gaza Strip owing to the cut-off of access to fuel, portending a real disaster for all health and humanitarian services, in contravention of international humanitarian law and amounting to the commission of international crimes, including crimes against humanity. The OIC strongly condemns the blatant targeting by Israel’s brutal occupation forces of Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in the Gaza Strip, which injured or killed hundreds of innocent sick, injured and displaced innocent civilians. That represents a war crime and a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, ethics and international and humanitarian instruments. The OIC also strongly condemns Israel’s bombing of mosques and churches, including the St. Porphyrius Greek Orthodox Church, where families where sheltering, killings dozens of Palestinians. The OIC reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, bears full responsibility for the fate of civilians in the Gaza Strip and the real tragedy to which they are being subjected as a result of the bombardment, siege and starvation, without electricity, food, or clean water and being forced to abandon their homes, and for the policy of indiscriminate collective punishment that it applies in flagrant violation of international law and international humanitarian law, as well as its legal responsibilities as the occupying Power in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. We call for the immediate cessation of the barbaric aggression of the Israeli occupation forces against the Palestinian people and the immediate lifting of the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip. The OIC calls upon the international community to act swiftly and to hold the Israeli occupying Power accountable for those heinous war crimes against the Palestinian people and humankind at large, and calls for immediate intervention to halt that massacre. As I conclude, allow me to recall another prominent OIC issue before the Court related to the Rohingya Muslim minority of Myanmar. The OIC welcomes the adoption by the Human Rights Council on 7 July 2022 of a resolution on the situation of human rights of Rohingya Muslims (A/HRC/RES/50/3) and the subsequent General Assembly resolution 77/227, of 15 December 2022, and it has continued to support the current legal case filed by the Government of the Gambia at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In that connection, we underscore the State responsibility of the Myanmar Government to protect from harm its civilian minority communities, notably the Rohingya Muslims, against systematic discrimination, including killing, rape, eviction and forced expulsion.

My delegation would like to thank Judge Joan E. Donoghue, President of the International Court of Justice, for presenting an eloquent report (see A/78/PV.20) on the judicial activities of the Court for the period from 1 August 2022 to 31 July this year (A/78/4). We thank her and the Vice-President of the Court, Judge Kirill Gevorgian, for guiding the work of the Court during that period. We take this opportunity to congratulate Judge Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant on his appointment as a member of the Court, succeeding the late Judge Antônio Cançado Trindade. As a country that has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court by declaration, we reaffirm our support for the role of the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations in settling disputes peacefully among Member States, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We recognize that the Court enjoys Member States’ trust and confidence for its crucial role in the interpretation and clarification of the rules and principles of international law, as well as in the progressive development and codification of international law. We acknowledge that the Court has fulfilled its task admirably and has acquired a well-deserved reputation as an institution that maintains the highest legal standards in accordance with its mandate under the Charter of the United Nations and its own Statute, which is an integral part of the Charter. Taking stock of the work performed since its first sitting, in April 1946, and the submission of the first case, in May 1947, we see that the Court has been seized of 190 cases through July 2023. It has delivered close to 150 judgments and rendered 28 advisory opinions. As the report (A/78/4) indicates, during the judicial year 2022-2023 the Court delivered judgments in four cases. It handed down 20 orders required for different purposes at different stages of proceedings of the cases, and held public hearings in six cases. During the period under review, the Court was seized of five new conten­ tious cases and two requests for advisory opinions. The report further reveals that as of 31 July, the Court had 18 contentious cases and two advisory proceedings pending on its docket. The volume and the quality of its work demonstrate that the Court has lived up to its task of settling disputes between States. Beyond a doubt, the Court has acquired a well-deserved reputation as an institution. Concerning the subject matter and the issues, the cases before the Court involve complex factual and legal issues relating to a wide range of areas, including territorial and maritime delimitation, human rights, reparation for internationally wrongful acts, environmental protection, the jurisdictional immunity of States and the interpretation and application of international treaties and conventions concerning, among other things, diplomatic relations, the elimination of racial discrimination, the prevention of genocide, the suppression of the financing of terrorism, the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the safety of civil aviation. The geographical spread of the cases brought before the Court and the diversity of their subject matter clearly illustrate the universal character of the Court’s jurisdiction and the importance of the Court’s role in upholding the rule of law. In the performance of its judicial functions, the Court has remained sensitive to political realities and to the sentiments of States, while acting in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, its own Statute and other rules of international law. Significantly, the Court has not lost sight of the need to adapt its working methods, including through the holding of public hearings in a hybrid format following the coronavirus disease pandemic, setting itself a demanding schedule of hearings and deliberations in handling emergent situations and in dealing with the complexity involved in the cases submitted to it. The Trust Fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme of the Court, established in 2021 following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 75/129, in 2020, is a welcome initiative. We are pleased to note that the Trust Fund has had a promising start and that the first three Fellows selected with the sponsorship of the fund have successfully completed the programme. We are further pleased to note that for the year 2023/24 intake, the Court had received 148 applications from 94 nominating universities located all over the world, with 65 universities seeking sponsorship through the Trust Fund for the 91 candidates whom they nominated. Of that large number of applicants, the Court has selected 15 candidates, including three from developing countries, including India, Iran and Tunisia. The number and diversity of applications received by the Court demonstrates the continuing and growing interest in trust-fund-sponsored programmes. We appreciate the Court’s efforts to ensure the greatest possible global awareness of its decisions through its publications, multimedia offerings and website, which 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 invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. Before concluding, we wish to reaffirm our strong support for the Court and acknowledge the importance that the international community attaches to its work.

We would like to extend our appreciation to the President of the International Court of Justice for presenting the comprehensive report (A/78/4) on the Court’s activities over the past two years (see A/78/PV.20). We also hold in high regard the unwavering commitment of the judges who serve on the International Court of Justice. Over the years, the International Court of Justice has assumed an indispensable role in international life. It has been instrumental in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes and in fostering friendly relations among nations. Throughout the period under review, the Court’s engagement has been particularly notable, as evident in its handing down of four judgments, its rendering of 20 orders and its consideration of 18 contentious cases and two advisory proceedings, as elaborated on in the latest report. We echo the Court’s assessment that the geographical spread of the cases brought before it and the diversity of their subject matter illustrate the universal and general character of the Court’s jurisdiction. Moreover, that has demonstrated the trust that Member States have placed in the Court’s capacity to solidify international law as the cornerstone for peaceful coexistence among nations. In line with that objective, it is equally important that all Member States diligently fulfil their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and the international treaties to which they are contracting parties. Those encompass the obligation to comply with the judgments and rulings issued by international courts and tribunals, including the International Court of Justice. We would like to highlight, in addition to the Court’s dispute-settlement function, another of its core functions, namely, its provision of advisory opinions in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter. Advisory opinions contribute significantly to the elucidation of international law, including the legal aspects related to major issues of international concern. One such critical concern is climate change, a challenge that extends from our present generation to our posterity, posing an existential threat to many low-lying nations, small island States and coastal regions worldwide. While efforts have been made, including net-zero commitments, they fall short of the comprehensive response needed. More ambitious and immediate actions are imperative. They include seeking an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice clarifying States’ obligations under various treaties, including, inter alia, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This year marks the first time that a number of requests for climate-change-focused advisory opinions have been sought from international courts and tribunals, including a request from the General Assembly for an International Court of Justice advisory opinion on 29 March 2023 (resolution 77/276). Those processes could have profound impacts upon how environmental obligations under international law, and specifically those related to the impacts of climate change, are interpreted. We believe that the legal opinions provided by the Court will establish prerequisites for the more robust implementation of commitments related to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Given in particular that the countries that contribute the least to climate change are now suffering the most from its negative impacts, we look forward to the Court’s clarification of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, as well as the obligation of cooperation, including through the transfer of green technologies, and the responsibility in case of violation of such obligations. We firmly believe that the Court’s advisory opinion will reinforce our collective endeavours to combat climate change and enhance the role of the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, addressing a matter of enduring significance for the future of humankind. In that regard, we welcome the Court’s orders inviting States to furnish information on the questions submitted to the Court and fixing the deadline thereto. Viet Nam stands ready to work closely with and receive the support of other Members of the United Nations in our common endeavour to combat climate change for our planet and future generations.

Let me begin by thanking President Donoghue for her presentation last week (see A/78/PV.20) of the annual report of the International Court of Justice (A/78/4). The report sets out the considerable activity of the Court over the last 12 months in what has undoubtedly been a busy year for international justice. As that was President Donoghue’s final address to the General Assembly in that capacity, Ireland would like to thank her for her service both as President of the Court since 2021 and as a judge since 2010. She has made a significant contribution both to the Court and to international law, and that is widely acknowledged. The large number of cases currently before the Court, as well as those disposed over the past year, involve a very wide variety of legal issues. They also reveal a broad geographic spread, with parties to cases coming from all continents. The cases before the Court are, however, of interest to all States, and we in Ireland, for instance, are studying carefully the Court’s recent judgment in the Nicaragua v. Colombia continental shelf delimitation case, which is of relevance to all States with broad continental margins. In addition to contentious cases, the Court has before it at the moment two requests for advisory opinions. The increasing resort to the Court is, in our view, a demonstration of the confidence that States have placed in its integrity, independence and expertise. It is also testimony to their trust in the vital role of international law in settling international disputes. That trust is shared by Ireland, and we were happy, therefore, to make a declaration accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court a number of years ago. We encourage all States that have not yet done so to actively consider making such a declaration. Indeed, we endorse President Donoghue’s comments made earlier this year, when she said: “States that are truly committed to the rule of law must entrust international courts and tribunals with the judicial settlement of legal disputes. When a State avoids binding and compulsory third-party dispute settlement, its invocations of the rule of law sound hollow.” (S/PV.9241, p.6) The Court also plays a valuable role in clarifying international law through its advisory opinion function. This year Ireland has submitted a written statement to the Court in relation to one of the requests for advisory opinions before it and is actively considering submission of a written statement in relation to the other. We continue to attach high importance to the Court’s important advisory function. In concluding, I want to reiterate once more Ireland’s strong support for the Court and its vital role in the international system.

We are meeting once again to consider the annual report (A/78/4) submitted to the General Assembly by the International Court of Justice. This solemn occasion bringing together two principal organs of the United Nations is not only an exercise in accountability but also an opportunity to improve the functioning of the international justice system. Costa Rica thanks the International Court of Justice for the report and in this regard would like to make the following comments. First, we are encouraged by the significant increase in the activities of the Court, which is a positive sign of the confidence of States in submitting their disputes to the principal judicial organ of our Organization, in accordance with Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations. That strengthens the international justice system and legitimizes it as an organ essential to rules- based international relations. However, we are concerned by the fact that a considerable number of States, including those tasked with electing judges to the Court, still do not recognize its jurisdiction. The practice of not recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court is regrettable, as it is not consistent with international obligations emanating from the basic principles of international law. Repeated and grave non-compliance with Article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations is equally concerning, as is the failure to comply with the Court’s decisions and judgments, in particular the qualified legal decisions of its advisory opinions. While its advisory opinions are not legally binding, their goal is to provide clarity on applicable international law and must be taken under special consideration. Compliance with international law cannot be selective. The judgments and decisions of the International Court of Justice must be complied with without exception, not only when it is convenient or advantageous to do so. Non-compliance with Articles 93 and 94 of the Charter undermines not only the mandate of the International Court of Justice, but also the foundation of the Organization as a whole. A State that claims to be part of a rules-based international order must comply with them, even when it is difficult or not in its interest to do so. Secondly, the report before use once again demonstrates the close interrelationship between the maintenance of international peace and security and justice. We are astonished that, despite the immeasurable work of the Court, it accounts for approximately 1 per cent of the regular budget of the United Nations. And yet it is subject to budgetary restrictions, as if we were dealing with a problem rather the main objective of the United Nations system, which is the peaceful settlement of disputes. In other words, one of the six main organs of the Organization  — the main body responsible for the administration of international justice  — is provided with a budget that is not commensurate with its importance. Is that the importance we accord to genuine and effective international justice, when, at the global level, military spending continues to increase shamelessly and exponentially? Words without action are pointless. Costa Rica regrets that resources continue to be earmarked for war, not to the peaceful resolution of disputes or the protection of human rights, much less to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The Court’s annual budget equals the cost of one single state-of-the-art fighter plane. Is that not shameful? The Court must be provided with a budget commensurate with the high quality of its work  — and especially now, with the excellent contribution it is making to international law and the international order. Thirdly, as the report clearly points out, the geographical distribution of the cases brought before the Court and the diversity of the issues before it illustrate the universal and general nature of its jurisdiction. As I noted at the outset, while confidence in the Court is a positive sign of the benefits of international law for the peaceful resolution of disputes, the International Court of Justice, like other international jurisdictions, including the International Criminal Court, fundamentally depends on the principle of good faith so that its decisions are enforced. The lack of a system to ensure the enforcement of international judicial decisions is a major problem of the international rules-based order, and we call on the United Nations to address both compulsory international jurisdiction and compulsory enforcement of international judicial decisions as one of its strategic goals. My country also believes that access to international justice must be democratized through the adoption of other working languages of the Court, in particular Spanish. Spanish- speaking countries have been strong supporters of the work of the Court, and that support and confidence must be reciprocated by the use of Spanish as one of its working languages. Costa Rica reaffirms its steadfast commitment to the International Court of Justice and urgently calls on all States to respect international law and its institutions, which are the cornerstone of our collective security architecture.

As a country committed to the coordination, adoption and implementation of multilateral policies and supporting the principles, rules and practices of international law, Peru welcomes the report (A/78/4) on the activities of International Court of Justice presented to the General Assembly (see A/78/PV.20) by Judge Joan E. Donoghue, in her capacity as President of the Court. In that regard, I take this opportunity to underscore the important role of the International Court of Justice as the supreme judicial organ of the United Nations in the peaceful settlement of disputes. That organ has fully demonstrated its usefulness in the maintenance of international peace and security and key role in strengthening collective efforts of States in the pursuit of those goals through justice based on respect for treaties, good faith and equity. Moreover, the Court contributes boldly to the promotion of the rule of law at the international level, thereby ensuring that basic principles prevail, such as the division and separation of powers, the balance and control of power, compliance with the law, legal security, non-arbitrariness, the implementation of measures for abuses of functional responsibility, the rationalization of the use of force by law enforcement and other areas. It bears underscoring that the Court has made jurisdictional pronouncements on important issues such as the law of the sea, water resources, the law of treaties, territorial and maritime delimitation and sovereign rights over natural resources on the continental shelf. Similarly, it is worth noting the need for the enforcement of decisions on disputes between States. In that regard, compliance with the judgments issued by the International Court of Justice is vital to ensuring friendly relations based on cooperation among nations. Likewise, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, the advisory opinions of the Court must be taken into account. In that regard, we respectfully encourage States that have not yet done so to consider the possibility of accepting the jurisdiction of the Court, in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute. Peru welcomes and fully understands the outreach efforts to increase the institutional presence of the Court. We believe that the online resources and services made available on the Court’s website, including the broadcast of all its public sessions as well as the regular updates on its activities and of its social networks, are keeping up with times. Peru reiterates its thanks to the host State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for its continued and significant support for the work of the Court. Peru also stresses the importance of cooperation between the Court and the other principal organs of the Organization based in New York. I conclude by reaffirming Peru’s unwavering support for the work of the International Court of Justice, the role of which is vital in rationally and peacefully resolving international disputes and effectively addressing serious global challenges in defence of the international order, which is under threat by lawlessness and the prioritized search for solutions based on the use of violence. The latter is unacceptable, which is why supporting and building on the Court’s work in that area is imperative.

Bangladesh aligns itself with the statement of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, delivered by the representative of Mauritania under agenda item 73. We thank the President of the International Court of Justice for her report (A/78/4). As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, we commend the International Court of Justice for its crucial role in promoting the pacific settlement of international disputes and upholding the rule of law at the international level, thereby, contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security. We also recognize the significance of the Court’s important jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions, which contribute to the clarification and development of international law, thereby strengthening the peaceful settlement disputes. We express our satisfaction about the progress of the Court’s work. We believe that enhanced cooperation by the Court with the Security Council, as well as Member States, is crucial for the fulfilment of the Court’s mandate in a more robust manner, thereby advancing the rule of law at the global level. In that context, Bangladesh reiterates its commitment to extending all cooperation to the Court in its functions. As we deliberate today on the work of the International Court of Justice, please allow me to highlight three priorities of Bangladesh from the report. First, as a country hosting over 1 million Rohingya Muslims who fled Myanmar in the face of mass killing, rape, arson, torture and other forms of atrocity crimes, we attach crucial importance to case Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), instituted under the 1948 Genocide Convention. In that regard, we recall in particular the order of the Court dated 23 January 2020, indicating provisional measures, in which the Court recognized the Rohingya as a “protected group”, within the meaning of article II of the Genocide Convention, and acknowledged presence of a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights of the Rohingya in Myanmar. We call upon Myanmar to comply with the order in letter and spirit. Furthermore, we call upon the Security Council to diligently oversee the implementation of the provisional measures. Secondly, Bangladesh strongly denounces all illegal acts by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including during its current indiscriminate and brutal military operations in Gaza, in violation of the principles of international humanitarian law and the rules of war. We also condemn its continued occupation and adoption of policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory, in flagrant violation of international human rights law. We also call upon the international community to scrutinize Israel’s claim for right to self-defence, as an occupying Power under international law. Bangladesh is pleased to participate in the ongoing proceedings in the Court on an advisory opinion on Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and looks forward to the upcoming hearing in the Court. Thirdly, we also wish to closely follow the ongoing proceedings in the International Court of Justice for advisory opinions on the legal implications of climate change on the rights of present and future generations. Although our carbon footprint is negligible and we contribute almost nothing to global climate change, we are one of the worst victims in the face of the climate debacle. The future of our present and future generations is seriously jeopardized due to the socioeconomic, environmental, cultural, human and security implications of climate change. As such, we see the proceedings at the International Court of Justice on climate change as a monumental milestone in our relentless pursuit of climate justice. Bangladesh is immensely proud and appreciative of being actively involved in that historic process.

In his speech at the inaugural sitting of the International Court of Justice, on 18 April 1946, the first President of the General Assembly, His Excellency Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, said: “I would not venture to assert that the International Court of Justice is the most important organ of the United Nations; but I think I may say that … there is none more important.” Singapore agrees with this sentiment. The Court is a cornerstone of our rules-based multilateral order. Judicial settlement is not the only means for the settlement of disputes. But the fact is that the Court represents a collective commitment to an important ideal — the ideal of a world in which law and principle, not force and arms, are used to resolve disputes. We live in troubled times — that much is certain. But it is precisely now, more than ever before, that we need the Court. We must remember that the Court itself was born of war and that its very existence, as was said by Mr. Salomon Jean René de Monchy, who was the former mayor of The Hague, during the Court’s inaugural session in 1946: “[The Court] is an appeal to the conscience of the nations, telling them that force of arms is not the only, nor the best, way of securing what they consider to be their rights”. The question for us is whether or not we still believe in the ideal that the Court represents, and if so, are we doing enough to ensure that its work is well supported? We cannot assume that the Court will always remain the vital and active institution that it is today. Recent history has shown that it is possible for once-vibrant institutions to grow moribund or be paralysed by politics overnight. We must avoid that with regard to the Court. It is with that in mind that my delegation would like to offer three reflections on the way forward. First, we must consider the issue of providing adequate resources for the effective functioning of the Court. The report of the Court (A/78/4) records what it describes as an extremely high level of activity in the past year. The Court has issued four judgments and 20 orders, held six public hearings and inscribed seven new cases on its list — five contentious cases and two advisory opinions. And it has done so on a budget that has remained fairly constant, at approximately $29 million, which represents less than 1 per cent of the regular budget of the United Nations. Let us compare that to the $6 billion that we spend here at the United Nations annually on peacekeeping and the $750 million that was spent on special political missions last year. Against those figures, it is very clear that we are significantly underinvesting in an institution that plays a critical role in ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes and the rule of law. The scale of that underinvestment in the peaceful settlement of disputes is made starker when we consider the numbers. The Court’s docket is now the fullest it has been in memory, with 20 cases on the General List, 17 of which were filed in the past five years. There are now a staggering 85 States, or nearly half of the United Nations membership, that are involved in pending cases before the Court, whether as parties or as interveners. And it is not just the number of cases involved, but their complexity. Provisional measures are now requested in nearly half of the contentious cases currently on the Court’s docket, each requiring an abridged hearing and expedited treatment. Despite that, the Court has only asked for a very modest increase to its budget this year, mostly for additional resources to support the General Assembly’s request for an advisory opinion on the obligation of States in respect of climate change. The Assembly approved the Court’s budget last year, and my delegation hopes that we can do so again smoothly this year. Looking ahead, however, there is a clear need to provide the Court with a more substantial increase in resources to reflect the substantial increase in its workload and to place the Court on a more secure financial footing. It is crucial that we provide the Court with the resources it needs to do the vital work that we, the Member States, have tasked and rely on it to do. My delegation calls on all Member States to show leadership on this matter. It is critical that each one of us, individually, and all of us, collectively, commit to investing more resources in the peaceful settlement of disputes. The second point that I want to make relates to the issue of access to justice. The report of the Court describes recourse to the Court as a cost-effective solution, which is an understated way of putting the matter. My delegation agrees with that assessment and would like to commend the Court for its efficiency, as we note that the average period between the conclusion of oral proceedings and the delivery of a judgment or an advisory opinion by the Court does not exceed six months. In that connection, my delegation is pleased to note that three awards were made from the Trust Fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme this year to support the participation of three nationals from developing countries who were nominated by universities located in developing countries. Singapore was pleased to have been part of the group of five States that coordinated the General Assembly resolution to establish the trust fund, because we believe that access to opportunity is a critical part of access to justice. We have no doubt that the judicial fellows selected will benefit immensely from their participation and return home to share their experiences and contribute to the cause of international justice. Finally, I turn to the issue of outreach and communication by the Court. As President of the Court, Judge Donoghue observed at the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Court that, although known as the World Court, it did not originally live up to that name. In 1946 the United Nations comprised only 51 Member States, and representatives from only 44 States participated in the committee of jurors that drafted the Court’s Statute. Furthermore, at that time, more than 750 million people lived in colonies on non-self- governing territories, and therefore had no role in shaping the Statute of the Court. The picture, of course, has since changed. The United Nations now comprises 193 Member States, each one sovereign and equal. And the States that are parties to the contentious cases pending before the Court include four from the Asia- Pacific States, five from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, three from the Group of African States, six from the Eastern European Group and eight from the Group of Western European and other States. One can say that the Court now is truly universal. And it is a Court that belongs to all of us, because it hears and adjudicates cases from all over the world. More needs to be done, in our view, to explain the purposes of the Court and its activities to people around the world, especially to young people. The hallowed halls of the Peace Palace seem a world far away from where the disputes it adjudicates are playing out. And it bears noting that, while the Statute and rules of the Court allow for it, the Court has never sat outside The Hague. That bears reflection. In a similar vein, while my delegation commends the President and members of the Court and the Registrar for giving regular presentations on the work of the Court, we note that almost all of those presentations took place at The Hague or in New York. If opportunity avails, we would encourage the members of the Court and its supporters to consider initiatives, where possible, that would spread awareness of the vital work of the Court to other parts of the world, especially developing countries. It is important to communicate the values and purposes of the Court to people around the world, especially to the youth of the world. We need the next generation to be advocates and champions of the Court and to be advocates of a multilateral rules- based system founded on international law. I have spoken at length today because my delegation considers the issues that we have raised to be critical for many of us, especially for small countries, for which international law and the role of the Court is fundamental  — if not existential. The Charter of the United Nations records our collective determination “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war “ and “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”. The peaceful settlement of disputes is a critical part of the multilateral system, and a vital part of discharging that responsibility rests on the Court. And it is our duty as members of the General Assembly and the United Nations to support the Court in its work. In conclusion, I echo the words of former Secretary- General Kofi Annan, who on the sixtieth anniversary of the Court described it “as a central element of our international society”. I could not agree more, and I wish the Court, including the Judges who will be elected to the Court next week, every success in the year ahead.

I deliver this statement on behalf of the delegation of the Sultanate of Oman to the General Assembly at its seventy-eighth session, on agenda item 73, “Report of the International Court of Justice”, which is an extremely important topic for my country. Through this meeting, we are reviewing the functions of a principal organ of the United Nations. In that regard, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report (A/78/194). I also thank the President of the International Court of Justice for her comprehensive briefing (see A/78/PV.20) on the activities of the Court, as set out in its report (A/78/4). The delegation of the Sultanate of Oman aligns itself with the statements made by the representatives of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on behalf of the Group of Arab States; the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; and Azerbaijan, on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (see A/78/PV.24). We stress our principled position on the need to reach a peaceful settlement of disputes and refrain from the threat or use of force, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its principles. The efforts to promote the relationship among the organs of the United Nations, particularly between the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, include this traditional debate on the Court’s annual report to the General Assembly, which enables Member States to understand the work of the Court and discuss relevant issues. We note that a number of countries submit their disputes to the Court as a sign of their acceptance of its jurisdiction. In that regard, the Sultanate of Oman supports resolution 77/247, of 30 December 2022, through which the General Assembly requested, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter, that the Court render an advisory opinion on the legal effects of Israel’s ongoing violation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and its long-time occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967, including annexing that territory, and on the impact of Israel’s policies and practices, as set forth in paragraph 18 (a) of resolution 77/247, regarding the legal status of the occupation and its legal impact on all States and the United Nations. We stress the Sultanate of Oman’s firm position in support of the Palestinian people in their right to self- determination and the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital, based on the 4 June 1967 borders and in accordance with Security Council resolutions and other relevant international resolutions. Our support is also in line with the Arab Peace Initiative; the principle of land for peace; the vision of the international community for the two- State solution; the rules and principles of international law; and the diplomatic and legal action carried out by the State of Palestine to maintain the rights of the Palestinian people and to protect them from the crimes perpetrated by the Israeli occupying Power. We believe that the international community must shoulder its responsibility to end the settlement and Israeli plans to annex parts of the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as the need to maintain the legal, historic and religious status quo of the occupied city of Jerusalem, including steps for the State of Palestine to be recognized as a full-fledged Member of the United Nations. The Government of the Sultanate of Oman presented its written statement to the Court in The Hague in accordance with resolution 77/247, requesting that it render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s ongoing violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. In the light of Israel’s ongoing, flagrant and systematic violations of international law as it continues its occupation of Palestinian territories, the Court must decide that the Government of Israel must immediately cease all activities, policies and laws that obstruct the right of Palestinians to self-determination by ending the occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Court must acknowledge the clear responsibility of all States for upholding Palestinians’ right to self-determination, in line with United Nations resolutions and its Charter. The Court’s impartiality and quality of work have made States trust it and turn to it for resolving their disputes as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and its tangible role in issuing judgments and advisory opinions for the peaceful settlement of disputes in the context of promoting the rule of law at the international level. The Sultanate of Oman is committed to the principles of the United Nations and its Charter, namely, respecting international norms and law, non-interference in the domestic affairs of States, the peaceful settlement of disputes among States, the need to refrain from the use or threat of force and supporting dialogue among States and promoting dialogue among them. We have the conviction that resolving disputes in a spirit of reconciliation and tolerance is a civilized behaviour that leads to better and sustained results than those achieved through conflict. In conclusion, we commend the pivotal and important role of the International Court of Justice in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter. We reiterate the position of the Sultanate of Oman in support of the Court in its work towards adherence to the provisions of international law, the established principles of the Charter and the role of the United Nations in promoting the relationship among the various organs of the United Nations, particularly the Court as the principal judicial organ of the Organization.

At the outset, Malaysia would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Joan E. Donoghue, for her report on the work of the Court (A/78/4). Malaysia aligns itself with the statements delivered by the representatives of Azerbaijan, on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries; and Mauritania, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (see A/78/PV.24). We appreciate the continued dedication of the Court, as reflected in the report. Malaysia notes that, during the reporting period, the Court delivered judgments in four cases, handed down 20 orders, held public hearings in six cases and was seized of five new contentious cases and two requests for advisory opinions. That is a clear expression of the continued confidence of Member States in the Court. Malaysia is committed to the purpose and principles of the United Nations in promoting and upholding the rule of law. We honour the indispensable role of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, as well as its independence and integrity. We reaffirm our recognition of the Court’s important role in the development of international law, the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the maintenance of international peace and security. To that end, Malaysia values the Court’s legal advisory opinions in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations. The advisory opinions, albeit non-binding, carry strong legal weight and moral authority. An example of an advisory opinion that has enduring salience is that rendered in July 1996 on the question: “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?” (see A/51/218, annex). In that seminal opinion, the Court recognized that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly the rules and principles of humanitarian law. The Court further declared, unanimously, that there exists a legal 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. With the advisory opinion, the Court has set legal parameters whereby the use of nuclear weapons indeed ignores customary international law and international treaties. In that regard, Malaysia, since 1996, has annually presented to the First Committee and the General Assembly a draft resolution entitled “Follow- up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons”. We invite Member States that have not done so to support and co-sponsor the draft resolution (A/C.1/78/L.21) at this session of the First Committee. Malaysia reiterates its call for the organs of the United Nations, especially the Security Council, to utilize the Court’s issuance of advisory opinions. We support the current advisory proceedings on the question of Palestine at the International Court of Justice, as requested by the General Assembly through its resolution 77/247, adopted on 30 December 2022. Against the backdrop of Israel’s belligerent military aggression on the occupied Palestinian territory, it is now more important than ever to put an end to Israel’s illegal settlement and despicable apartheid practices. The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion will provide credence and valuable support to the Palestinians’ push for their inalienable rights to self- determination in an independent and sovereign State of Palestine. Equally, Malaysia calls upon the international community to hold Israel accountable for its continued illegal settlement, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. Malaysia believes that, as the principal legal organ of the United Nations, the Court’s authority should be strengthened and provided with a fresh purpose in the New Agenda for Peace. To that end, Malaysia continues to recognize the contribution of the International Court of Justice in upholding the primacy of the rule of law in the maintenance of international peace and security.

My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the delegation of Azerbaijan on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (see A/78/PV.24). Ecuador thanks the President of the International Court of Justice for presenting the report (A/78/4) of the activities of the Court from 1 August 2022 until 31 July 2023 (see A/78/PV.20). Against an international backdrop marked by the greatest number of conflicts since the Second World War, the role of the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the only international tribunal with general jurisdiction of international law is of particular relevance. The Court is an indispensable organ to ensuring the obligations established in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations  — to bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law the settlement of international disputes or situations that could lead to a breach of the peace. That is why we welcome the sustained increase in the volume of the Court’s work in both contentious and advisory matters. Of the 20 cases currently pending resolution, 17 were filed in the past five years. Moreover, we note with interest the diversity of cases presented and the broad geographical variety of States that refer cases to be considered by the Court. That attests to the confidence that States have in the impartiality and independence of the Court. That trust is also based upon the obligation that we as States all have to enforce the Court’s decisions in cases in which we are involved, including provisional measures. We value the Court’s efforts to ensure the dissemination of its judgments through its publications, its multimedia broadcasts and its website, which constitute reference materials for States, practitioners of international law and academic centres. We also support the Court’s role in promoting the rule of law through its academic and public outreach programmes and underline the importance of bolstering internship programmes for students and professionals from developing countries in order to contribute to capacity building. Moreover, we reiterate the complementary nature of the responsibilities of the Court and Security Council in maintaining peace and security. In that regard, we urge the Council to examine the mechanisms established in the Charter to reinforce that complementarity, including those set out in Articles 94 and 96 of the Charter. I would like to conclude by expressing our gratitude both to the judges of the Court and the members of its secretariat for their commitment to the good functioning of the Court, while reiterating our support for equipping the Court with sufficient resources for it to carry out its work.

The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations — the world’s Court. We applaud the International Court of Justice’s significant contribution to the progressive development of international law and the strengthening of the rule of law at the international level. The International Court of Justice can fully engage in the peaceful resolution of disputes only when Member States are willing to accept its jurisdiction. Regrettably, only 73 Member States have accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, which means nearly two thirds of the United Nations membership has yet to do so. We therefore renew our call on all States to make declarations under Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice in order to strengthen its reach and impact in line with the declaration on promoting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice led by Romania. We also believe that, given the International Court of Justice’s important relationship with the Security Council, all States aspiring to serve on the Council as permanent members, as well as those with permanent seats, should set a positive example by accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. The importance of the International Court of Justice is also mirrored in the relevance of its pending cases and decisions. In that respect, it is important that third States also engage with the Court to provide their views and interpretations of relevant international law. That is why Liechtenstein has engaged, in particular in the International Court of Justice’s pending advisory opinion over the legal consequences of the occupation of Palestine by Israel and in the case of Ukraine versus the Russian Federation on the allegation of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Liechtenstein submitted written pleadings in both cases, and in the latter case we also co-presented our position during the oral proceedings together with Austria, Czechia and Slovakia. Moreover, with respect to the International Court of Justice’s Myanmar versus Gambia case, we recall that resolution 396 (V) should guide all credentials decisions in the United Nations system, including before the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice, in its advisory capacity, plays an important role in providing clarity on complex questions of international law. That tool offers States authoritative guidance regarding the application of international law. Liechtenstein is encouraged by the growing trend of States seeking advisory opinions from the Court. That strengthens the Court’s role as a primary driver for resolving international legal uncertainties. In that context, we took active part in Vanuatu’s core group in seeking an advisory opinion from the Court on climate change. The core group is in many ways a testament to effective multilateralism and, led by Vanuatu, it highlighted the ability of smaller nations to bring crucially important proposals before the General Assembly. Climate change is indeed a complex issue that affects us all in various ways and raises many difficult questions. From weather extremes to sea level rise, the relentless impacts of climate change know no boundaries, affecting every corner of our world. In the light of its status as the paramount existential issue of our time, we need clear and well-reasoned legal answers to be able to address the challenge appropriately. We trust that the International Court of Justice will provide the clarity needed to navigate the complexities of international law concerning climate change, especially at the intersection with human rights. In that context, we affirm our commitment to making a submission to the Court in pursuit of those crucial answers and look forward to its opinion and guidance on this vital global issue.

Malta aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union (see A/78/PV.20). Malta attaches great importance to the rich toolbox for the pacific settlement of disputes enshrined in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, including judicial settlement. International courts and tribunals are indispensable for maintaining peace and security, which is why we commend the important work of the International Court of Justice, as reflected in its annual report (A/78/4). The high level of activity of the Court confirms the trust that the United Nations membership attaches to its principal judicial organ. That trust should further translate into good-faith compliance with the Court’s decisions as an expression of respect for the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the Court, and into alignment with the global efforts to advance the rule of law. In that regard, Malta also joined the cross- regional political commitment advanced by Romania through the declaration on promoting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, aimed at broadening the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction. Malta is also participating in ongoing processes of the Court, including the case Allegations of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). We have submitted our written and oral observations and look forward to the Court’s judgment once the deliberation on admissibility is completed. As a current elected member of the Security Council, we attach great importance to accountability, as well as respect for the architecture of international treaties and the fundamental principles of international law, including the prohibition of the threat or use of force. We also consider the Court to be the pre-eminent forum for addressing human rights violations that threaten the integrity of the international legal system. Additionally, with regard to the Court’s ongoing processes, we supported the General Assembly’s landmark consensus adoption in March of resolution 77/276, which requests an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. We are convinced that the advisory opinion will also make an important contribution to the work of the International Law Commission (ILC) study group on sea level rise, generally enhancing the relationship of legal pursuit between the Court, the Sixth Committee and the ILC towards progressive development of international law. Finally, it is important to continuously develop a culture of international law through in-depth knowledge and professional training. Following the adoption by consensus in December 2020 of resolution 75/129, the Trust Fund for the Court’s Judicial Fellowship Programme was established with the purpose of granting fellowship awards to outstanding candidates from universities of developing countries to enable their participation in the programme. As a co-sponsor of that resolution in 2020, we were thrilled to learn about the 148 eligible applications that the Court received from universities from all over the world, with 91 candidates applying for sponsorship. That represents a direct contribution to further developing the culture of peace and supporting the dissemination of knowledge and professional experience in public international law. For all those reasons, the International Court of Justice is an important universal body in promoting the international legal order through its contentious and advisory jurisdiction for current and succeeding generations.

I would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Joan E. Donoghue, her presentation (see A/78/PV.20) of the report (A/78/4) on the activities of the International Court of Justice between 1 August 2022 to 31 July 2023, and I express our appreciation to the judges of the Court for their tireless efforts. We appreciate the important work of the Court during the period under review, with judgments and rulings on various issues such as territorial delimitation, human rights, reparation for international wrongful acts, environmental protection, jurisdictional immunity, the interpretation and application of international treaties and conventions, the elimination of racial discrimination, the prevention of genocide and the suppression of the financing of terrorism. The diverse range of topics covered reflects the Court’s universal vocation and the important role it plays in ensuring the rule of law and a rules-based multilateral order. The International Court of Justice is the only international court of a universal character with general contentious and advisory jurisdiction. We recognize the commendable work of the Court and applaud its solid reputation as an impartial institution. Today’s debate gives us an opportunity not only to evaluate the Court’s work but also reflect on its important function and the role of international law in ensuring peaceful coexistence among States. In that regard, we value the judgments and opinions of the Court as a key element in generating trust and predictability in relations among States and providing certainty on key issues of international law, as well as the Court’s crucial role in the determination and application of international law. The Court’s work contributes to ensuring a clearer understanding of the rules governing relations between States and provides us with an excellent means for the peaceful settlement of disputes while promoting the rule of law and certainty in the interpretation of international law, which favours the progressive development of the latter. In times of uncertainty and international upheaval, international law stands as a beacon of cooperation, dialogue and peace, for which we promote compliance with and respect for, and the International Court of Justice plays a highly important role in defending the values and principles enshrined in the Charter, in particular the peaceful settlement of disputes. We believe in a rules-based multilateral system in which the peaceful resolution of disputes and the maintenance of international peace and security are fundamental. As such, international law must be the central pillar of that order so as to promote an environment conducive to development and harmony among nations. The Republic of Paraguay is committed to international law and its general principles governing international relations. We reaffirm our firm commitment to respecting the purposes and principles of the United Nations, in particular the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means and refraining from the threat or use of force. Finally, we wish to extend our best wishes to the judges of the Court during the current term and in their future work. We recognize and appreciate the Court’s significant contribution to developing and strengthening international law.

First of all, I would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Joan E. Donoghue, not only for her inspiring presentation (see A/78/PV.20) of the Court’s annual report (A/78/4), but also for the work accomplished throughout her tenure. On behalf of the Kingdom of Belgium, I would also like to commend all the members of the Court and the Registrar for the work carried out over the past year. Belgium aligns itself with the statement of the European Union (see A/78/PV.20) and would like to make several remarks in its national capacity. The peaceful settlement of disputes, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, is the corollary of the prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations. In that context, my country has always attached the greatest importance to the International Court of Justice which, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, plays a crucial and growing role in the peaceful settlement of disputes, and as such contributes to conflict prevention and the achievement of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. International law is the cornerstone of our multilateral system. It is an essential tool for preventing conflicts, and thus for participating in the maintenance of international peace and security. The Court is more essential than ever to guarantee an international legal order based on the rule of law. The figures mentioned in the annual report speak for themselves: four judgments delivered within a period of six months; 20 orders; the holding of hearings in six cases; five new cases and two new requests for advisory opinions; and 20 cases listed on the General List. The Court’s intense activity attests to the confidence that States place in it and to their interests in finding a legal and peaceful solution to their disputes. Furthermore, the variety and importance of the areas in which the Court is called upon to rule, as well as the geographical diversity of the States concerned, also attest to its universal character and its ever-increasing role in the application and interpretation of international law. This year marks the sixty-fifth anniversary of Belgium’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Given the scope of its jurisprudence and its contribution to the determination and development of international law, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage States that have not yet done so to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. The representation, within the Court, of different legal systems, languages and cultures undoubtedly contributes to the efficiency and quality of its decisions. However, we have the deep conviction that the Court can be truly effective only if its judgments and orders are respected and its opinions are implemented. We are extremely concerned by the fact that some States believe that they do not have to respect its judgments. Every decision that is not respected or implemented constitutes a direct attack on the system established by the Charter of the United Nations. Before concluding, I would like to reaffirm my delegation’s support for the special Trust Fund for the Court’s Judicial Fellowship Programme, the first beneficiaries of which completed the programme in the summer of 2023. The objective of the Fund is to improve the geographic and linguistic diversity of participating jurists and to encourage the participation of talented young jurists from developing countries. Finally, I would like to emphasize the need to continue efforts to ensure greater balance in terms of gender representation at the Court. The situation is certainly improving, slowly but surely; however, there is still a way to go for balanced gender representation.

My delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by the representatives of Mauritania, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation; and Azerbaijan, on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (see A/78/PV.24). At the outset, let me thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Joan E. Donoghue, for presenting (see A/78/PV.20) the Court’s report (A/78/4) on its work during the past year. I also thank her for the excellent briefing on the role and functioning of the Court. The International Court of Justice is the apex instrument for the promotion and preservation of a world order based on international law, in particular the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. It promises equity and justice among, and often within, nations. Pakistan reposes its trust in the International Court of Justice to empathetically and consistently uphold the fundamental laws that govern relations among States and peoples. The Court’s role is even more vital today when threats to peace, stability and prosperity are proliferating, when the use or threat of force is frequent and widespread, when occupation persists for decades and when the right of self- determination is an unfulfilled promise for many peoples. The enduring tragedy of Palestine vividly illustrates those formidable challenges, rendered even more poignant by the continued failure of the Security Council to even call for a ceasefire to stop the slaughter in Gaza. We therefore urge the Secretary-General to ensure the early implementation of the resolution entitled “Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” (resolution ES-10/21) adopted last Friday (see A/ES-10/PV.41) by the General Assembly during its tenth emergency special session on Palestine. In that context, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, adopted in 1970, gains renewed significance. It enjoins Member States to abstain from any forcible action that denies peoples their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The Declaration, although over half a century old, remains a cornerstone of international law, offering a moral and legal compass in a world grappling with escalating conflicts and foreign occupation. Under international law, the struggle for self-determination and liberation from foreign occupation is deemed legitimate; conversely, it is the suppression of the struggle that is illegal. While States retain the right to self-defence, those unlawfully occupying foreign territories cannot justify their actions under the guise of self-defence. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court’s position is unique. It is the only international court with universal remit and general jurisdiction. The indispensable role of the Court in the peaceful resolution of disputes flows from, and is fully aligned with, the cardinal objectives of the United Nations Charter, especially, and primarily, the use of force and the pacific resolution of disputes. Article 36, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations clearly sets out the role of the Court in the settlement of disputes. Article 1, paragraph 1, recognizes such settlement of international disputes “by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law”. Almost 75 countries, including Pakistan, have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. We value the possibility of the Court being consulted by the General Assembly, the Security Council and other United Nations organs on any legal question and by States on specific disputes to offer an array of options to settle their disputes. Those options must be optimally utilized. The Court’s advisory opinions are also an effective avenue for dispute resolution and the establishment of equitable international norms. The Court’s 2004 advisory opinion Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (see A/ES-10/273) has profound pertinence for not only the Palestine-Israel dispute, but also other instances of the application of United Nations principles and international humanitarian law. We eagerly anticipate the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. Pakistan has submitted its written inputs to the Court in that regard. We expect that seminal advisory opinion to provide definitive clarity on the principle of self-determination and occupation. We trust that the Court’s interpretation will not only have a profound impact on Palestine’s just pursuit of self- determination and liberation, but also create basic norms for application in other instances of foreign occupation and the denial of self-determination. Pakistan believes that the International Court of Justice and other judicial mechanisms can, and must, play a pivotal role in the resolution of conflicts and disputes through unbiased conclusions based on international law. To that end, the jurisdiction of the Court should be made mandatory for issues that are on the Security Council’s agenda and where the resolutions of the Security Council remain unimplemented. In conclusion, Pakistan will continue to uphold the role and functions of the International Court of Justice as an indispensable pillar in the international legal framework upholding the principles of the Charter for the pursuit of global peace and justice.

At the outset, let me to begin by thanking the President of the International Court of Justice for her outstanding presentation (see A/78/PV.20) of the Court’s annual report (A/78/4), which provides an exhaustive account of its activities during the period from 1 August 2022 to 31 July 2023. My delegation notes with satisfaction the report of the Secretary-General (A/78/194) on his trust fund to assist States in the settlement of disputes through the International Court of Justice. My delegation aligns itself with the statements made on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (see A/78/ PV.24) and would like to make a few comments in its national capacity. An overview of the report of the International Court of Justice during the period under review reveals its extremely high level of sustained activity, with a total of 24 decisions handed down, including four 4 judgments and 20 orders. Geographically, all regions of the world have been represented by parties in the contentious cases pending before the Court. They include four States from the Group of Asia-Pacific States, five from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, three from the Group of African States, six from the Group of Eastern European States and eight from the Group of Western European and other States. The contentious cases referred to the Court cover a wide range of issues, including, inter alia, border delimitation, human rights, the protection of the environment, the jurisdictional immunity of States and the interpretation and application of international treaties concerning in particular diplomatic relations, the prevention of genocide, the suppression of the financing of terrorism, civil aviation safety and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. The current crisis facing multilateralism and the resurgence of tensions in every region of the world must further serve as an incentive to Member States to refer their disputes to the Court, as the stability of the international order is at stake. My delegation is of the view that cooperation among Member States depends largely on the establishment of an international order based on legal rules, prohibiting the threat or use of armed force in international relations. My delegation believes that it is the responsibility of all Member States to uphold the rule of law, not the rule of force. The international rule of law is imperative for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and creating a more just, equitable and inclusive world. To that end, the primacy of international law must be an obligation, not an option, for Member States. That means that parties must prioritize, among other peaceful means, recourse to an international judge or arbitrator to settle their international disputes. The Charter of the United Nations obliges the parties to any dispute likely to threaten international peace and security to seek a solution, in particular by judicial means. For my delegation, the legitimacy of the International Court of Justice emanates from the fact that it is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, as enshrined in Article 92 of the Charter, which confers upon it jurisdiction that no other court in the world enjoys. That of course goes a long way towards justifying its use to settle international disputes and its consultative role in better explaining and clarifying the rules and principles of international law. The contribution of the International Court of Justice to the establishment of the rule of law at the international level is incontestable. Its universal jurisdiction remains an indisputable guarantor of the international legal order and, consequently, a tool for maintaining international peace and security. As Mr. Mohammed Bedjaoui, former President of the Court, so eloquently underscored before the General Assembly in 1996, “The International Court of Justice is a component ... not only of the machinery created by the Charter for the peaceful settlement of disputes, but also of the general system for the maintenance of international peace and security ... While it does not bear exclusive responsibility for the peaceful settlement of legal disputes, it does in a way bear the principal responsibility.” (A/51/PV.34, p. 2) My delegation believes that the effectiveness of the Court’s action depends on its power to hear all disputes that may arise among Member States and in all matters. In that regard, the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice plays an important part in the fulfilment of its mandate, in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute, which enables States parties at any time to declare that they recognize as compulsory and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes. That is at the heart of my country’s declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory, which it deposited on 2 December 1985. In that regard, my delegation calls on all Member States that have not yet done so to deposit with the Secretary- General their declarations recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. My country reaffirms its commitment to the Judicial Fellowship Programme, the goal of which is to enable young law-school graduates, nominated by their universities, with a special interest in international law, to acquire professional experience at the Court and improve their knowledge in the area of the peaceful settlement of disputes, while expenses related to their training are covered. That is why Senegal joined the core group, together with Argentina, the Netherlands, Romania and Singapore, to establish a special Trust Fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme of the International Court of Justice. Its creation in 2021, following the General Assembly’s adoption by consensus of resolution 75/129, on 14 December 2020, attests to the willingness of Member States, in particular developing States, to have a better understanding of international law. My delegation encourages Member States, intergovernmental organizations, national institutions, non-governmental organizations and individuals to make voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund, whose current balance as of 30 June was estimated to be $3,467,172. In conclusion, my delegation reiterates its commitment to promoting the rule of law at the international level and supports all international legal instruments for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Miss. Rios (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): First of all, allow me to express my gratitude for the report (A/78/4) presented by the President of the International Court of Justice (see A/78/PV20) and to recognize the important work done by the 15 judges and the Registry of the Court. In the challenging context such as the one we currently face, with conflicts and strong geopolitical interests, in a world in which hegemonic Powers still attempt to maintain their own power and unilateral strength, it is crucial to reiterate the importance of peaceful dispute settlement among States and the indispensable role played by the Court in achieving that objective. Therefore, we recognize the important role of the Court and its contribution to international peace in international situations that could disrupt peaceful coexistence among States, with the Charter of the United Nations as its legal basis. Furthermore, the Court issues advisory opinions on legal matters raised by United Nations organs, which contributes to the interpretation and development of international law. Cases submitted to the Court cover various areas, including territorial and maritime delimitation, reparation for internationally wrongful acts, jurisdictional immunity of States, the interpretation and application of international treaties and, recently, human rights and the protection of the environment. Those are processes in which my country will actively participate, taking into account the fact that it will set an important precedent for the future of the planet, Mother Earth and collective rights. Bolivia has demonstrated its commitment to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to dispute settlement through international law. During the reporting period, one of the Court’s four judgments referred to the case Dispute over the status and use of the waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia). That case was one in which my country participated from the very start, and we acknowledge the judgment issued. Bolivia will therefore fully implement in good faith each of the decisions issued by the Court. We demand that the other side to do the same. Furthermore, it must be underscored that in 2018 the Court issued a historic judgment that, while it did not grant Bolivia sovereign access to the sea did recognize Chile’s obligation to negotiate in good faith to resolve the dispute. The judgment was an important step towards reconciliation and peace in the region and called for dialogue and peaceful dispute settlement, which are fundamental principles of international law. My country believes that the best path to peacefully settle disputes among States will always be dialogue and political and diplomatic negotiations among brotherly peoples. However, we are also certain that using the International Court of Justice is a right of every State when its integrity is under threat. It is important to highlight that the willingness of States to refer their disputes to the jurisdiction of the Court must go hand in hand with their commitment to implementing its decisions, including its orders on provisional measures. The Court cannot impart justice if States do not fulfil their responsibilities fully and in good faith. Therefore, we deem it essential to continue promoting the universality of the Court as the principal judicial organ established by the United Nations. We also underscore the fact that the Court has translated important documents and resolutions into other official United Nations languages. However, we also believe that it is important for Spanish to be an official language of the Court to ensure that parties involved can communicate with greater accuracy and clarity, which is key for guaranteeing global justice. Lastly, we highlight the function and jurisdiction of the Court and its contribution to developing international law. Today, more than ever before, the countries of the world have the shared objectives of peace, security and the development of our peoples. We are sure that the International Court of Justice will continue to contribute to those purposes.

Brazil aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Angola on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries. I thank the President of the International Court of Justice for her informative report (A/78/4) on the activities of the International Court of Justice from August 2022 until July 2023. I also commend the judges of the Court for their tireless efforts in promoting peace and justice in international relations through their judicial activities. The annual debate about the report of the International Court of Justice offers us an opportunity not only to assess its work, but also to better understand the essential role international law plays in defusing tensions among Member States. By fostering dialogue, justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes through the common language of international law, the Court helps to make the world safer and more prosperous. It also places itself as an effective channel for preventive diplomacy and cooperation. The Court has decisively contributed to consolidating and clarifying international law in areas as diverse as the law of the sea, territorial and maritime delimitation, diplomatic law, human rights, the law of treaties, the use of force, reparation for internationally wrongful acts and environmental protection, to name just a few. Through its advisory opinions and judgments, including indications of provisional measures, the Court upholds the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the rule of law in international affairs. The Court also provides fundamental guidance to all subjects of international law in the interpretation and application of international norms, including multilateral treaties. This year’s report attests to the Court’s continued intense activity in its effort to ensure the rule of law in the international community: four judgments, 20 procedural orders, six public hearings, five new contentious cases and two requests for advisory opinions. The pending cases involve States from different regions of the world and address a great variety of international legal issues. That bears witness to the relevance of the Court in upholding international law and promoting the peaceful settlement of international disputes. As we said last year (see A/77/PV.20), the Court’s ability to adapt its proceedings in response to the coronavirus disease pandemic, including the holding of public sittings in hybrid format, was remarkable. At the same time, Brazil reiterates its appreciation for the return to in-person working methods for public hearings and private meetings of the Court in June 2022. In any case, the lessons learned with the greater use of video-conferencing technology, hybrid meetings and data processing services should not be forgotten. Outreach initiatives are necessary for a wider understanding of the Court’s key role in international justice. Such efforts also enable broader knowledge of international law. That is why Brazil welcomes the Court’s internship programmes, the development of multimedia platforms, including hybrid hearings before the Court, activity on social media, as well as the Court’s participation in events organized by universities. Brazil also commends the International Court of Justice for promoting the geographic and linguistic diversity of legal practitioners taking part in its Judicial Fellowship Programme. The establishment in 2021 of a Trust Fund for the Programme was a crucial measure to ensure a future increase in the number of young jurists from universities based in developing countries receiving professional training in the Court. In that vein, Brazil expresses its satisfaction with the news that the first three fellows sponsored by the trust successfully completed the Programme in mid-2023. As the main judicial organ of the United Nations and the only international court of a universal character with general jurisdiction, the International Court of Justice embodies the core values of the United Nations Charter. In times of crisis and uncertainty, the international community must renew its commitment to international law and support the institutions in charge of enforcing norms and principles that foster cooperation and peace.

My delegation thanks the President of the International Court of Justice, Honourable Judge Joan E. Donoghue, for her report (A/78/4) and takes note of the Court’s work for the seventy-eighth session of the General Assembly, as contained in the report. The Republic of Honduras recognizes the Court as the principal international judicial organ of the United Nations through which several international disputes have been peacefully settled. As a founding State of the United Nations, my country has not only submitted to its rules, but has also always had recourse to its mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes with other States, such as the International Court of Justice. Just as the Republic of Honduras endorses the principles and practices of international law that promote human solidarity, respect for the self- determination of peoples and the strengthening of universal peace and democracy, it also proclaims the validity and mandatory enforcement of international arbitral and judicial decisions. In that regard, my country is absolutely convinced that compliance with the international judgments handed down by a competent international court, such as the International Court of Justice, as well as compliance in good faith with the commitments acquired through treaties, guarantee peace, harmony and security among peoples and Governments. In that connection, in this seventy-eighth session, the Republic of Honduras welcomes the efforts of the International Court of Justice to maintain its effectiveness in resolving international disputes or issuing advisory opinions despite the increase in work that has been reported over the past 20 years. Humankind is going through complex and interconnected crises, such as the aftermath of the coronavirus disease pandemic and threats to the global economy. In that context, the efforts of all the institutions of the United Nations system, in particular those of the Registry of the International Criminal Justice, to adapt to the budgetary constraints and adjustments, are remarkable. Honduras advocates that the 2024 budget be approved so that the Court is granted the essential financial resources for the performance of its judicial functions. My country reaffirms its support for the annual Judicial Fellowship Programme, which allows interested universities to nominate and sponsor recent law graduates to continue their training in a professional context within the Court. In conclusion, the Republic of Honduras reiterates its willingness to contribute to the search for solutions to the concerns and requests raised in this report in order to ensure the most efficient functioning of the International Court of Justice.

On behalf of the Republic of Cuba, we wish to highlight the importance of the International Court of Justice as an international jurisdictional organ that resolves peacefully and in good faith the most important disputes of the international community in accordance with international law. We reiterate our commitment to the strict application of international law and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. At the same time, we would like to highlight the activity carried out by the high judicial organ since its establishment. The decisions and opinions of the International Court of Justice have been particularly important — not only for the cases submitted to it, but also for the development of public international law. In that regard, the Republic of Cuba appreciates the presentation of the report of the International Court of Justice (A/78/4), which covers the period 1 August 2022 to 31 July 2023. The numerous cases brought before the Court, many of which involve Latin American and Caribbean countries, demonstrate the importance attached to the work of the Court in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Cuba supports the peaceful settlement of disputes under Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations, and has declared its voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the Court. However, we express concern at the refusal of some countries to recognize and comply with unfavourable judgments, which hinders the mechanisms to make them effective and enforceable. We therefore consider it useful for the Court to critically assess its relationship with United Nations organs, especially the Security Council. This situation highlights the need to reform the United Nations system to give greater guarantees to developing countries vis-à-vis powerful nations, which also extends to the International Court of Justice. It is essential to support the work done by the Court through its judgments and advisory opinions to strengthen the rule of law at the international level. We are grateful for the publications and online resources made available to Member States, as they are valuable for the dissemination and study of public international law, especially for developing countries, some of which are, on many occasions, deprived of information related to advances in this area of law. In the particular case of Cuba, that situation is exacerbated by the criminal, outdated and illegal policy of economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the Government of the United States of America, which, among other effects, prevents us from accessing numerous websites and restricts our use of the Internet. The International Court of Justice has examined many significant cases. In that regard, Cuba attaches great importance to the advisory opinion issued unanimously on 8 July 1996 on the Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (A/51/218, annex). We also appeal for full respect for the advisory opinion of 9 July 2004 on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (see A/ES-10/273) and call on all States to observe and ensure respect for the provisions of the Court on that important matter. Cuba has sent its written contributions to the Court on the advisory opinion on the Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and we await the final outcome of that opinion. Cuba once again condemns the humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank. We reiterate our unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian and Arab cause. We appeal for the urgent implementation of resolution ES-10/21 adopted just a few days ago with 120 votes in favour. Cuba also attaches special relevance to the allocation of the necessary budgetary resources so that the International Court of Justice can properly carry out its work with a view to the peaceful settlement of disputes under its jurisdiction. We call on the Assembly to work to ensure that those resources be provided to the Court in a timely way. Lastly, we reiterate that the Republic of Cuba has been a peaceful country that respects international law and has always faithfully complied with the obligations stemming from international trade treaties to which we are a party.

The International Court of Justice is more active than ever, which is a sign of its strength and of the trust placed in that institution by many States. Recourse to it is useful and in keeping with the objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, with the determination to establish the necessary conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained and with the need to pursue the peaceful settlement of disputes. After all, the Court is the supreme judicial organ of the United Nations. It is intended to be expansive and representative and to reflect the diversity of legal systems and linguistic diversity around the world. We thank the President, the judges, the Registry and the staff, all of whom work to ensure that justice prevails. The Court’s jurisprudence has helped to strengthen the international legal framework, to clarify the law and to state the law in matters of major interest. That is why the States are resorting to it and referring to it cases touching on fundamental and existential topics. Lebanon has co-sponsored resolution 77/276, adopted this year by acclamation, requesting an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. The Court has reaffirmed in particular the fundamental principles of humanity. It did so in 2004 with its advisory opinion on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (see A/ES-10/273), a landmark opinion in which the Court affirmed that Israel, the occupying Power, had an obligation to put an end to its violations of international law and in which the Court stressed the joint application of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the event of occupation. The Court also reaffirmed the obligation of erga omnes to respect the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Almost 20 years after that advisory opinion, Israel still refuses to comply with and continues to flout international law. Almost 20 years after that noteworthy opinion, and despite ongoing violations of international law, the General Assembly has decided to turn to the judges and to the law by submitting to the Court a request for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory (resolution 77/247). Lebanon supported that referral and has already submitted its written observations to the Court. In parallel with the scale of atrocities currently taking place in Gaza, settlement activities are intensifying in the West Bank, where crimes committed by settlers against Palestinians continue to be perpetrated, with the complicity of the authorities. How many times have we heard, from this rostrum, that there can be no peace without justice, no security without justice and no respect for human rights without justice? And yet, as soon as calls for justice are heard for a people — the people of Palestine  — as soon as concrete initiatives are taken in that direction in the United Nations for a people  — the people of Palestine  — an about-face occurs: justice, hitherto praised, suddenly becomes an impediment to peace, an impediment to security and an impediment to respect for human rights. Some, who pretend to be paragons of virtue, claim to defend justice and respect for international law only to trample them when it comes to Palestine. We are way beyond selectivity, way beyond double standards and way beyond partiality. The credibility of our system is undermined, and for good reason, by that lack of application of certain principles. We approved the rules of international law. They did not just fall out of the sky. And they apply to everyone. We do not call them obligations for nothing. There can be no justice of convenience which is tailored to the interests of a few, ultimately, to the detriment of the rights of all.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers on Tuesday, 7 November, at 10 a.m. in this Hall, after we have exhausted the list of speakers for the already scheduled item. The exercise of the right of reply has been requested. I would like to remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by delegations from their seats.

In exercising the right of reply, my delegation would like to refer to comments and legal statements made by the representative of Bolivia who referred in her statement to the ruling of the International Court of Justice of 1 October 2018 in the case of the Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile). In its verdict, the International Court of Justice ruled that Chile has no obligation, and has never had any obligation, to negotiate sovereign access to the sea for Bolivia, and that any such claim is devoid of legal basis. Chile would like to reiterate that the ruling of the Court fully resolved the dispute between the two States, and there is no further dispute with regard that matter.