A/79/PV.24 General Assembly

I have the pleasure to congratulate His Excellency Judge Nawaf Salam on his election as President of the International Court of Justice. I look forward to his introduction of the report of the Court (A/79/4) this morning. Every year, at the debate on the report of the International Court of Justice, we are reminded that the principles of justice and international law, as enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, are the cornerstone of our multilateral system. These principles not only sustain the foundation of international cooperation but also guide us through these times of great human suffering and conflict. Now more than ever, we must reaffirm our collective commitment to these ideals. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice remains essential to resolving disputes between States. Its advisory opinions on critical legal questions help to clarify and develop international law, and it partially works to settle in accordance with international law legal disputes submitted to it by States. I call on Member States that have not yet done so to consider accepting the Court’s jurisdiction in accordance with its Statute. In doing so, they will help to promote the rule of law globally. Although the Court’s workload has been considerable, this has not stopped it from rendering important decisions this year. Notably, the Court issued an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, demonstrating cooperation between two principal organs of the United Nations, the Court and the General Assembly, which have referred this matter to it. In response to the Court’s advisory opinion, the General Assembly called upon all States to comply with the obligations under international law stipulated in the advisory opinion. The cycle of violence in the Middle East will stop only if the concerned parties and the international community take meaningful actions towards a just, comprehensive and lasting peace, one that is grounded in international law, the Charter and relevant United Nations resolutions. I reaffirm that only a two-State solution can provide both Israelis and Palestinians the peace, security and human dignity they deserve. The Court’s work extends beyond matters of peace and security. For example, last year, the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the Court on the question of the obligations of States in relation to climate change, a crisis that threatens ecosystems and dismantles livelihoods around the world. Every day we delay solving this crisis, the consequences magnify. We must act decisively to curb climate change and reduce its devastating consequences, especially for the nations and communities most at risk. I look forward to the opinion of the Court to help our collective endeavour towards decisive action against climate change. Without respect for international law, diplomacy will fail. Diplomacy is the child of international law. A stable and peaceful multilateral system can only be built on the pillars of fairness, justice and equality. It cannot be built on the outdated notion that might makes right. Morally, right is more powerful than might. The Pact for the Future (resolution 79/1), just adopted at the Summit of the Future, represents our shared vision of a stronger and more united multilateral system, of which the International Court of Justice is an integral part. In the Pact for the Future, world leaders recognized the role of the Court in in adjudicating disputes and agreed to uphold its mandate. As we move forward with implementing the Pact, we must remember that our success depends on preserving and reinforcing a rules-based international order. The stability of nations and communities lie on such an order. This journey of preserving a rules-based international society may be challenging and uncertain, but it is key to achieving durable peace and stability among nations. So together, let our actions reflect our collective belief that justice, fairness and the rule of law are the foundations upon which the future must be built. I give the floor to Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the International Court of Justice. Judge Salam: The last time I addressed the General Assembly was in 2017, at the end of my 10 years of service as Permanent Representative of my country, Lebanon. Today, I am honoured to stand at this rostrum as the President of the International Court of Justice on the occasion of the General Assembly’s consideration of the annual report of the Court 9A/79/4). The interest shown in the work of the Court by the Assembly is very welcome. Before I begin my review of the Court’s busy judicial activities over the past year, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Your Excellency, Mr. Philemon Yang, on his election as President of the Assembly at its seventy-ninth session. I wish you every success in your distinguished office. (spoke in French) I wish you all the best, Mr. President. (spoke in English) Since 1 August 2023, the starting date of the period covered by the Court’s annual report, the Court’s docket has remained full, reflecting the trust of the international community in the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. There are currently 23 active cases on the General List, 21 contentious proceedings and two advisory proceedings, one of which relates to questions put to the Court by the Assembly. The 23 cases on the docket include five new cases, one request for an advisory opinion and four contentious cases, which were brought in the course of the reporting year. On 13 November 2023, a request for an advisory opinion was transmitted to the Court by the Director General of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on the question whether the right to strike of workers and their organization is protected under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention of 1948, also referred to as Convention No. 87. On 29 December 2023, South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel with reference to a dispute concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip. On 1 March 2024, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Germany concerning alleged breaches of certain international obligations in respect of the occupied Palestinian territory. On 11 April 2024, Mexico instituted proceedings against Ecuador with regard to a dispute relating to “legal questions concerning the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means and diplomatic relations and the inviolability of a diplomatic mission”. In all three of these contentious cases, each applicant filed, together with its respective application, a request for the indication of provisional measures. The most recent contentious case was instituted by Ecuador against Mexico on 29 April 2024, regarding the latter’s conduct in relation to the former Vice-President of Ecuador, Mr. Glas Espinel. Since 1 August 2023, the Court has held 12 sets of hearings in 10 cases and has delivered two judgments and one advisory opinion as well as eight orders on requests for the indication of provisional measures and one order on the admissibility of declarations of intervention. The Court has also issued a number of orders on time limits in a range of cases. As is customary, I shall now give a brief account of the judgments and advisory opinions delivered and the substantive orders made during the period of the review. On 31 January 2024, the Court issued its judgment on the merits in the case concerning Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). The proceedings in this case were instituted by Ukraine following events that occurred from early 2014 in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula. It should be noted at the outset that the Court rejected the Russian Federation’s invocation of the “clean hands” doctrine as a defence on the merits, stating that it considered that this doctrine could not be applied in an inter-State dispute in which the Court’s jurisdiction is established and the application is admissible. With regard to the claims of Ukraine under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Court clarified that only monetary or financial resources provided or collected for use in carrying out acts of terrorism may provide the basis for the offence of terrorism financing. As for the alleged non- compliance by the Russian Federation with its obligations under specific articles of the Convention to free certain funds to prosecute or extradite alleged offenders of terrorism and financing offences, to assist other States parties in their investigations into terrorism financing and to take practicable measures to prevent the movement of “funds” into Ukraine for purposes of terrorism financing, the Court considered that it had not been established by the applicant that the Russian Federation had violated its obligations under the Convention. However, the Court did find that the Russian Federation had violated its obligations, under article IX of the Convention, to investigate allegations of the commission of terrorism financing offences by alleged offenders present in its territory. With regard to the claim of Ukraine under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Court indicated that it was not called upon to determine whether violations of obligations under the Convention had occurred in individual instances, but rather whether a pattern of conduct could be established. The Court examined in detail the alleged violation by the Russian Federation of various provisions of the Convention with regard to incidents of physical violence against Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea and measures taken against the Mejlis, a body that has historically played an important role in representing the interests of the Crimean Tatar community in Crimea. In addition, the Court examined measures relating to citizenship, measures taken with respect to culturally significant gatherings, measures relating to media outlets and measures concerning cultural heritage and cultural institutions of Crimean Tatar and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea. The Court found that it had not been established that the Russian Federation had violated its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Court next examined whether the conduct of the Russian Federation with regard to school education in Crimea qualified as racial discrimination under International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. After examining the legislative and other practices of the Russian Federation regarding school education in the Ukrainian language in Crimea, the Court concluded that the Russian Federation had violated its obligations under the Convention by the way in which it had implemented its educational system in Crimea after 2014 with regard to school education in the Ukrainian language. The Court then considered the submission of Ukraine that the Russian Federation had breached the Court’s order of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures. The Court found that by maintaining the ban on the Mejlis, the respondent had violated that order, while observing that this finding was made independently from the Court’s finding on the merits that the ban on the measures did not violate the Russian Federation’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. As to the availability of education in the Ukrainian language, the Court found that, while Ukraine had shown that a sharp decline in teaching in the Ukrainian language took place after 2014, it had not been established that the Russian Federation had acted in breach of the order on provisional measures. In particular, the Court took note of a United Nations report that confirmed that instruction of the in the Ukrainian language was available in Crimea after the adoption of the order. Finally, the Court considered that the Russian Federation, by recognizing the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic as independent States and by launching what it called a special military operation against Ukraine, had severely undermined the basis for mutual trust and cooperation and thus made the dispute more difficult to resolve, in violation of the Court’s order of 19 April 2017. On 2 February 2024, the Court issued its judgments on the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) case, with 32 States intervening. Members may recall that on 26 February 2022, Ukraine filed an application against the Russian Federation concerning a dispute under the Genocide Convention. On 3 October 2022, the Russian Federation raised preliminary objections to jurisdiction and admissibility. In its judgment, the Court explained that the dispute between the parties comprised two aspects. The first one concerned Ukraine’s request for a declaration that no genocide attributable to it was committed in the Donbas. The second one concerned the compatibility of the actions of the Russian Federation, including issues of force in and against Ukraine, with its obligations under the Genocide Convention. The Court concluded that it had jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention to entertain the first aspect of the dispute, and that Ukraine’s request for declaration that it was not responsible for a breach of its obligations under the Genocide Convention, was admissible. Of particular note in that regard is the Court’s finding that article IX of the Genocide Convention does not preclude the possibility for a State to seek a declaration that it is not responsible for committing genocide. In assessing the admissibility of Ukraine’s request in the current case, the Court took account of the fact that the request was made in the context of an armed conflict between the parties and that the Russian Federation had taken the measures complained of by Ukraine with the stated purpose of preventing and punishing genocide allegedly committed by Ukraine in the Donbas region. In such a special context, the Court recognized the legal interests of Ukraine in obtaining a declaration that it had not breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and its request was found admissible. However, the Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the second aspect of the dispute between the parties, that is, Ukraine’s claims that the Russian Federation’s use of force in and against Ukraine beginning on 24 February 2022 and its recognition of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic on 21 February 2022, violated obligations arising under articles I and IV of the Genocide Convention. The Court found that, even if the acts of the Russian Federation complained of by Ukraine were fully established, they would not constitute a violation of obligations under the Genocide Convention and therefore fell outside the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction under that Convention. The Court explained that Ukraine was not claiming that the Russian Federation had refrained from taking measures to prevent or punish a genocide, and that in these circumstances it was difficult to see how the conduct complained of could constitute a violation of obligations to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators of genocide. The Court was also not convinced that the alleged invocation in bad faith of the Genocide Convention by the Russian Federation could constitute a violation of obligations under articles I and IV, nor could the alleged violation by the Russian Federation of other international rules, such as the rules on the use of force, constitute a violation of the Genocide Convention, since that Convention did not incorporate such rules of international law. I should add that a particularity of this case is the fact that 33 States filed declarations of intervention under article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. I will explain, a bit further on, the procedure by which the Court decided on the admissibility of these declarations. Suffice it to say that, in its judgment, the Court rejected the Russian Federation’s preliminary objection to the admissibility of Ukraine’s submission, based on abuse of process. By this objection, the respondent had argued, inter alia, that Ukraine had sought to rally States to arrange an abusive mass intervention in this case, in an attempt to put pressure on the Court. I will now give an overview of the advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which was issued by the Court on 19 July 2024 in response to the request by the Assembly, as set out in resolution 77/247, adopted on 30 December 2022. These proceedings were closely followed by the international community. A total of 54 States participated in the recent proceedings, and 50 States presented oral statements. The League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the African Union also took part in both phases of the proceedings. I would recall that the General Assembly put two questions to the Court. First, it asked the Court to consider, “What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, 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?” (resolution 77/247, para. 18 (a)). Secondly, it asked the following: “How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?” (ibid., para. 18 (b)). With regard to the question of the prolonged occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory, the Court observed that the fact that an occupation is prolonged does not in itself change its legal status under international humanitarian law. In order to be permissible, an occupying Power’s exercise of effective control must at all times be consistent with the rules concerning the prohibition of the threat or use of force, including the prohibition of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force, as well as with the right to self-determination. With regard to Israel’s settlement policy, the Court reaffirmed, as stated in its 2004 advisory opinion on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (see A/ES-10/273), that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the regime associated with them have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law. With regard to the question of the annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory, the Court expressed the view that to seek to acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory is contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations and its corollary principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force. The Court then examined the question of the legal consequences arising from Israel’s adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures. The Court noted that the differentiation of treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territory could not be justified with reference to reasonable and objective criteria, nor to a legitimate public aim. Having established the adoption by Israel of related discriminatory legislation and measures, the Court found that this regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed on Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory constitutes systemic discrimination based, inter alia, on race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Court further observed that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considered that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of article 3 of the International Convention, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. The Court then addressed the effects of Israel’s policies and practices on the exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Having considered the negative consequences of these policies and practices, resulting in the Palestinian people being deprived of their right to self-determination over a long period, the Court found that Israel’s unlawful policies and practices are in breach of Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Turning to the second question put to it, the Court’s approach was to consider the manner in which Israel’s policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation and thereby the legality of the continued presence of Israel as an occupying Power in the occupied Palestinian territory. In that context, the Court expressed the view that Israel’s assertion of sovereignty and its annexation of certain parts of the territory constitute a violation of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force. Israel is not entitled to sovereignty over or to exercise sovereign powers in any part of the occupied Palestinian territory on account of its occupation. The Court further observed that the effects of Israel’s policies and practices and its exercise of sovereignty over certain parts of the occupied Palestinian territory constitute an obstruction to the exercise by the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination. According to the Court, the breach of the Palestinian people’s fundamental right to self-determination has a direct impact on the legality of Israel’s presence, as an occupying Power, in the occupied Palestinian territory. That occupation cannot be used in such a manner as to leave indefinitely the occupied population in a state of suspension and uncertainty, denying them their right to self-determination while integrating parts of their territory into the occupying Power’s own territory. The Court observed that the sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the occupied Palestinian territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful. In the concluding part of its advisory opinion, the Court addressed the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices and the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory. With regard to the legal consequences for Israel, the Court stated that Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory as rapidly as possible, that it must cease immediately all new settlement activities and evacuate all settlers from the occupied Palestinian territory, and that it has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the occupied Palestinian territory. With regard to the legal consequences for other States, the Court indicated that all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation. Finally, turning to the legal consequences for international organizations, the Court stated that such organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, and that the United Nations and the Security Council should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end, as rapidly as possible, the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. (spoke in French) I will now touch upon the various rulings handed down by the Court on substantive issues during the period under review. In that respect, I note the significant increase in the number of incidental proceedings brought before the Court and, in particular, the surge in requests for the indication of provisional measures, which are given priority over other cases. Although the Court is fully mindful of the importance and the value of this accelerated procedure, which enables parties to be granted emergency protective measures pending a decision on the merits, where irreparable damage to their rights is liable to occur, the Court wishes to emphasize that this procedure must not be used as a judicial tactic to advance substantive arguments. Turning now to the rulings handed down on substantive issues during the period under review, I shall first mention the order of 16 November 2023 in the case concerning Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic). The claimants brought this case on the 8 June 2023, alleging that the Syrian Government had been responsible, at least since 2011, for systematic breaches of its obligations under the Convention against Torture. The claim was accompanied by a request for the indication of provisional measures. Canada and the Netherlands affirmed, in particular, that measures were urgently required to protect the life and physical and mental integrity of persons in Syria who were victims of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or who were at imminent risk of such treatment or punishment. In its order of 16 November 2023, the Court directed the Syrian Arab Republic, in line with its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to ensure that no representative, organization or person under its control, authority or influence commits any such acts. The Court also ordered the defendant to take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of all evidence relating to alleged acts falling within the scope of the Convention against Torture. I now turn to the order of 17 November 2023, in which the Court indicated additional provisional measures in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan). In that regard, I recall that on 29 September 2023, Armenia submitted a new request for the indication of provisional measures, in which it alleged that on 19 September 2023, Azerbaijan launched a military offensive against the ethnic Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, leading to the forced displacement of tens of thousands of people. Armenia therefore called for urgent provisional measures to protect this population. In its order of 17 November 2023, the Court set out three measures. First, it called on Azerbaijan to ensure, in line with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, that any person who left Nagorno-Karabakh after 19 September 2023 and wished to return would be able to do so safely, freely and promptly; that any person who remained in Nagorno- Karabakh after that date and wished to leave would be able to do so in the same way; and that any person who wished to remain in Nagorno-Karabakh would not be subject to the use of force or intimidation likely to induce them to leave. Secondly, the Court directed Azerbaijan to protect and preserve the documents and registers related to registration, identity and private property of those affected by the events of September 2023. Thirdly, the Court indicated that Azerbaijan should submit a report on the steps it had taken to implement the indicated provisional measures. Shortly after that order, on 1 December 2023, the Court issued another order indicating provisional measures in the case of Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela). We note that these proceedings began in 2018 and that the case is currently being examined on the merits, the Court having already ruled on question of competence and admissibility. On 30 October 2023, Guyana submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures, motivated by its concern in the wake of the announcement of the Venezuelan Government’s intention to hold a “consultative referendum”, on 3 December 2023, on the announced unilateral establishment of the state of Guayana Esequiba, which is the territory under dispute in this case. In its order of 1 December 2023, the Court indicated that, given the state of high tensions characterizing relations between the parties, it found that Venezuela’s conduct, namely, the convening of the referendum and the announcement that specific measures would be taken on the basis of its outcome, presented a serious risk of that State acquiring and exercising control and administration over the territory under dispute, currently administered entirely by Guyana. The Court therefore enjoined Venezuela, pending its final decision in the case, to refrain from taking any action that would alter the current situation in the disputed territory. The Court also called on both parties to refrain from any action that could exacerbate or prolong the dispute or make its resolution more difficult. I now come to the three orders issued by the Court in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). The first, dated 26 January 2024, pertains to the request for indication of provisional measures, filed by the applicant at the same time as its motion to institute proceedings. The second, dated 28 March 2024, relates to the request filed by the applicant for modification of the order for indication of provisional measures issued by the Court on 26 January 2024. The third, dated 24 May 2024, relates to the request filed by the applicant for the modification of the order of 28 March 2024. South Africa brought this action on 29 December 2023, alleging that Israel, in carrying out military operations in and against Gaza following the attack perpetrated on 7 October 2023 by Hamas and other armed groups, had breached and continued to breach its obligations under the Genocide Convention. According to South Africa, provisional measures were necessary to protect the rights of the Palestinian people, under the Convention, from further serious and irreparable harm and to ensure that Israel fulfilled its obligations under the Convention. In its order of 26 January 2024, the Court noted with deep concern that the population of Gaza was extremely vulnerable, observing that the military operation conducted by Israel after 7 October 2023 had caused, among other things, tens of thousands of deaths and injuries, the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as mass population displacements. The Court expressed alarm at the fact that many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip did not have access to basic food, drinking water, electricity, essential medicine or heating. In the operative part of its order, the Court enjoined Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of any act against Palestinians in Gaza falling within the scope of article II of the Genocide Convention; to ensure, with immediate effect, that its army did not commit any such act; to take all measures in its power to prevent and punish direct and public incitement to commit genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip; to take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian aid so as to alleviate the difficult living conditions to which the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were subjected; to take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts falling within the scope of articles II and III of the Genocide Convention committed against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip; and to submit, within one month of the date of the order, a report on all measures that had been taken to implement said order. Through a letter dated 12 February 2024, South Africa submitted to the Court what it termed an “urgent request for additional measures under paragraph 1, article 75, of the Rules of Court”. The applicant argued, in particular, that the developments in Rafah compelled the Court to exercise its power under that provision. On 15 February 2024, Israel submitted its comments on South Africa’s communication. By letter of the Registrar dated 16 February 2024, the parties were informed of the Court’s decision. The Court found that the alarming situation resulting from the latest developments in the Gaza Strip and, in particular, in Rafah, required the immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures that it had set out in its order of 26 January 2024, which were applicable to the entire Gaza Strip, including Rafah, and did not require the indication of additional measures. The Court further stressed that Israel remained bound to comply fully with its obligations under the Genocide Convention and the aforementioned order, in particular by ensuring the safety and security of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. On 6 March 2024, South Africa filed a new request for the Court to indicate additional provisional measures or to modify the measures that it had previously indicated in its order of 26 January 2024, in the view of the alleged change in the situation in Gaza since the indication of the first series of provisional measures. In its order of 28 March 2024, the Court ruled that recent developments of exceptional gravity, notably the unprecedented levels of food insecurity in the Gaza Strip and the fact that famine was taking hold there, constituted a change in the situation, under article 76 of the Rules of Court. It concluded that the provisional measures indicated in the order of 26 January 2024 did not fully cover the consequences arising from that change, which justified a modification of said measures. In the operative part, the Court reaffirmed the provisional measures indicated in its order of 26 January 2024 and indicated new measures. It enjoined Israel, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and in view of the worsening living conditions to which the Palestinians in Gaza were subjected, in particular the spread of famine and starvation, to take all necessary and effective measures, in close cooperation with the United Nations, to ensure the immediate, unrestricted and large-scale provision of urgently required basic services and humanitarian aid, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation products and facilities, as well as medical supplies and care, to Palestinians throughout the Gaza Strip, particularly by increasing the capacity and number of land crossings and keeping them open for as long as necessary. The Court also ordered Israel to ensure, with immediate effect, that its army did not commit any acts constituting a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza, as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by hampering, in any way, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian aid. Finally, it called on Israel to submit, within one month of the date of the order, a report on all the measures it had taken to implement said order. On 10 May 2024, South Africa submitted to the Court what it termed an “urgent request for the modification and indication of provisional measures”, with a view to compelling Israel to “cease its military offensive in the Rafah governorate” and to ensure unimpeded access to Gaza of United Nations and other officials engaged in the provision of humanitarian aid and assistance. In its order of 24 May 2024, the Court began by noting that it considered South Africa’s new request to be a request to modify the order of 28 March 2024, and that it was therefore necessary for the Court to first investigate whether the situation that had motivated the decision set out in the previous order had since changed. Given recent developments in Rafah, in particular the military ground offensive initiated by Israel on 7 May 2024 and the resulting successive large-scale displacements of the already extremely vulnerable Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip, the Court deemed that there had been a change in the situation within the meaning of article 76 of the Rules of Court. It concluded that the provisional measures indicated in its order of 28 March 2024 did not fully cover the consequences arising from that change, which justified a modification of the measures. In the operative part, the Court reaffirmed the provisional measures indicated in its orders of 26 January and 28 March 2024, and set out new measures. Specifically, the Court enjoined Israel, in keeping with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and in the view of the deterioration of the living conditions to which civilians in the Rafah governorate were subjected, to immediately cease its military offensive and any other action in the Rafah governorate that could subject the Palestinians in Gaza to living conditions that could result in their physical destruction, in whole or in part. Moreover, the Court called on Israel to keep open the Rafah crossing so as to ensure the unrestricted and large-scale provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, and to take measures that could effectively guarantee unhindered access to the Gaza Strip to any commission of inquiry, fact-finding mission or other body mandated by the relevant United Nations bodies to investigate allegations of genocide. Finally, the Court called on Israel to submit, within one month of the date of the order, a report on all the measures taken to implement said order. In each of its three orders, the Court expressed its grave concern about the fate of the persons taken hostage during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and still held by Hamas and other armed groups, and called for their immediate and unconditional release. I now turn to the Court’s order of 30 April 2024 in response to the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Nicaragua on 1 March 2024, together with an application instituting proceedings against Germany in the case concerning Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany). The applicant affirms that each of the contracting parties to the Genocide Convention are bound, under the Convention, to do its utmost to prevent the commission of genocide, and alleges that Germany, by providing political, financial and military support to Israel and by ceasing to fund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), is facilitating the commission of genocide, in breach of its obligation to do its utmost to prevent its commission. In its request for the indication of provisional measures, Nicaragua argued that provisional measures were urgently needed in order to ensure that Germany suspend its military assistance to Israel, given that this aid was being used or could be used to commit or facilitate the commission of violations of the Genocide Convention in the Gaza Strip, and to ensure that Germany to resume its support to UNRWA. In reaching its decision on Nicaragua’s application, the Court took into account, in its order, various factors, specifically the clarifications provided by Germany concerning its national legal framework relative to the manufacture, sale and export of weapons of war and other military equipment, as well as the apparent reduction, since November 2023, in the value of equipment for which arms export licences to Israel had been granted by the German Government. With regard to Germany’s decision to suspend its support for UNRWA’s operations in Gaza, the Court noted, first and foremost, that UNRWA contributions were voluntary in nature. The Court further noted that, based on information provided by Germany, no new payments were to be made by Germany in the weeks following the announcement of its decision to suspend financial contributions to UNRWA on 27 January 2024. Lastly, it noted that Germany had stated that it had supported initiatives aimed at funding the work of the Agency and had provided financial and material support to other organizations operating in the Gaza Strip. In conclusion, in view of the factual information and the legal arguments put forward by the parties, the Court deemed that the current circumstances did not rise to the level to require the Court to exercise its power to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of the Court’s Statute. Before stating that conclusion, however, the Court did recall that, in its order for the indication of provisional measures of 26 January 2024, in the case Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), it had noted that the military operation carried out by Israel following the 7 October attacks had resulted in, “a large number of deaths and injuries, as well as the massive destruction of homes, the forcible displacement of the vast majority of the population and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure”. The Court also indicated in its order, in the case concerning Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany), that it remained deeply concerned about the disastrous conditions in which Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were living. The Court recalled that under the first article, common to all the Geneva Conventions, all States parties were duty-bound to respect and ensure respect for those instruments in all circumstances. From this provision follows the obligation of each State party to said Conventions, “whether or not it is a party to a specific conflict ... to ensure that the requirements of the instruments in question are complied with”. Furthermore, the Court deemed it particularly important to recall the international obligations of all Member States with regard to the transfer of weapons to parties to a conflict, so as to avoid the risk of these weapons being used to commit violations of the aforementioned conventions. The Court stated that all these obligations applied to Germany, as well as to a party to the aforementioned conventions when it provided weapons to Israel. Lastly, I would like to say a few words about the Court’s order of 23 May 2024 in response to the request for the indication of provisional measures, filed by Mexico at the same time as its application of 11 April 2024, in the case concerning Embassy of Mexico in Quito (Mexico v. Ecuador). This case concerns events that transpired on 5 April 2024 and around that date when members of the Ecuadorian armed forces entered the premises of the Embassy of Mexico without the authorization of the Head of Mission, apprehended the Deputy Head of Mission and forcibly removed Mr. Glas Espinel, the former Vice-President of Ecuador, who had been granted political asylum by Mexico. In its request, Mexico called on the Court to order Ecuador to abstain from any breaches of the inviolability of mission premises and private residences of diplomatic staff in Mexico and to take the necessary measures to ensure the protection and respect for these premises, as well as the assets and archives contained therein. When considering this request, the Court took into account certain assurances provided by Ecuador to Mexico in writing, as well as at the hearing held on 1 May 2024. The respondent in fact guaranteed to the applicant, in keeping with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and other relevant international rules, the full protection and security of the premises, assets and archives of the diplomatic mission of Mexico in Quito, and authorized the premises to be vacated and for the same to happen to the private residences of diplomats. The Court deemed that the assurances provided by Ecuador did respond to the concerns expressed by Mexico in its request. As for the assurances, the Court reiterated that unilateral statements could give rise to legal obligations and that States concerned could rely on such unilateral statements and could request for the obligation to which they give rise to be upheld. It also reiterated that when a State takes on a commitment with regard to its conduct, it must be assumed that the State will uphold such a commitment in good faith. In view of the foregoing, the Court deemed that, for the time being, there was no urgency, as there was no real and imminent risk of irreparable harm being done to the rights invoked by the applicant. The Court also observed that the conditions for the indication of provisional measures stipulated in its jurisprudence were cumulative. Having noted that one of the conditions had not been met, the Court was not required to determine whether the others had been met. The Court concluded that the circumstances as presented to it did not require it to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of its Statute. Nonetheless, the Court insisted on the fundamental importance of the principles enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, recalling, in particular, that in the conduct of inter-State relations, there is no requirement that is more fundamental than the inviolability of diplomats and embassies. The Court began its deliberations on the merits of the case concerning Land and Maritime Delimitation and Sovereignty over Islands (Gabon/Equatorial Guinea), after having held public hearings in September and October 2024. It also deliberated on the preliminary objections raised by the respondent State in two cases concerning the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the first instituted by Armenia against Azerbaijan, and the second by Azerbaijan against Armenia. Before I conclude my statement, I would like to inform the Assembly of our progress on a number of important issues. At the outset, I would like to provide a snapshot of the modifications made to the Rules of the Court during the reporting period. The Court has made, in particular, certain modifications to the provision in its Rules relating to intervention. The goal of the changes, which entered into force on 1 June 2024, was to clarify the procedures with regard to the time limits that apply to interventions. I recall that the limits for submitting a request for intervention under Article 62 of the Statute and for declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute are set forth in articles 81 and 82 of the Rules of the Court. Following the modification of the two articles, States that wish to intervene must do so in a timely manner, that is, no later than the date set for the filing of the last written proceedings, or if the intervention is part of preliminary objections, no later than the date set for the filing of written statements of observations and submissions on the preliminary objections. Furthermore, the Rules as amended allow the Court to determine whether States intervening under Article 63 of the Statute can submit their observations during the oral proceedings, pursuant to Article 86, paragraph 2, of the Rules, or whether a written submission of observations is sufficient. Over the past few years, the Court has noted that States have expressed a growing interest in the possibility of intervening in contentious cases. It is all the more important, therefore, to ensure that procedural rules in this area are crystal clear to States that wish to intervene, and to allow the Court to organize the conduct of such cases in a rational and effective manner. (spoke in English) Allow me to now turn to the Trust Fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme of the Court, which, as members know, was established in 2021 by the Secretary- General, at the request of the General Assembly, with a view to enhancing the geographical diversity of the Programme through the provision of funding for selected candidates from developing countries nominated by universities in developing countries. I would recall that the Judicial Fellowship Programme enables interested universities to nominate recent law graduates to pursue their training in a professional context at the Court for a period of approximately 10 months. The Court normally accepts up to 15 participants each year from various universities around the world. In the few years since the Trust Fund was established, thanks to the generous contributions received, the initiative has been a resounding success, with 10 judicial fellows to date having made use of the Fund. Last year and the year before, three of the 15 judicial fellows were beneficiaries of the Fund, and I am happy to note that, in the 2023–2024 cohort, we have welcomed four judicial fellows who are recipients of a stipend through the Fund. It is a privilege for the Court to be able to nurture talented young lawyers through a judicial fellowship programme designed to function in an inclusive and representative manner. So far, nationals of Brazil, the Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kenya, the Philippines, South Africa, Tunisia and Türkiye have been awarded judicial fellowships through the Fund. It goes without saying that the continued success of the Trust Fund initiative relies wholly on the continued generosity of donors, be they States, international financial institutions, donor agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, or natural and juridical persons. I should add that interest in the Judicial Fellowship Programme remains extremely high overall. Indeed, for the current year, a total of 83 institutions put forward 131 eligible candidates for the Programme. I would now like to share the latest developments concerning the asbestos- related situation in the Peace Palace, the seat of the Court. I recall that concerns regarding this potential health hazard were first raised in 2016, when the iconic Peace Palace building was found to be contaminated with asbestos. Over the years, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has put forward various different proposals aimed at addressing the concerns. The current state of play is that, rather than embarking on wholesale asbestos removal and renovation works, the Dutch authorities will now adopt a more limited approach. In December 2022, a project coordinator was appointed by the Dutch authorities for the implementation of the first phase of the new plan. Consultations between the Court and the host country are ongoing with a view to determining, through an agreement, the applicable governance framework and the modalities for implementing this plan while ensuring the safety of judges and staff members and continuity in the activities of the Court. The key concern expressed to the host country by the Court during the consultations is that judges and staff members should be able to work in a safe environment and that its judicial activities are not unduly hindered at a time when it has an extremely busy workload. Moreover, the fact that the Peace Palace is more than 100 years old means that, independently of the asbestos problem, maintenance and renovation are required so that the Court can be confident in the knowledge that it can discharge its functions in a space that has the requisite modern facilities. With these observations in mind, the Court hopes that further discussions with the host country will lead to positive results. Before bringing my speech to a close, I would like to briefly touch on the budgetary situation of the Court. As my predecessor pointed out in her address to the Assembly last year (see A/78/PV.20), the international community’s reliance on the Court has never been greater, as reflected in the elevated number of cases on the docket. While the Court of course welcomes the continued trust placed upon it, the sustained increase in workload has placed a strain on the institution’s budgetary resources. The Court and its Registry have done their very best over the past few years to tackle this surging volume of work by revising and streamlining internal working methods and putting in place resource-efficient processes wherever possible. However, the simple fact is that the situation is no longer sustainable, which is why the Court is seeking a modest but vital increase in the resources made available to it for 2025. The Court is asking for an additional $1.1 million, corresponding to a 3.4 per cent increase compared with the approved appropriations for 2024. While the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions recommended that the Assembly grant only part of this budgetary request, I trust that the Court has been able to substantiate, in its engagement with Member States over the past several months, that the additional positions being sought are essential to the continued fulfilment of its mission. The possible withholding of the post resources sought would affect the functioning of the Registry and the Court as a whole. It is not difficult to anticipate that the consequences of that decision will ultimately fall on States, as the primary “users” of the Court, causing delays and backlog, and having a negative impact on the level of services and support that they have been accustomed to expect from the Court. I therefore call upon all Member States to give their backing to this budgetary request, mindful of the crucial role played by the International Court of Justice in the peaceful settlement of disputes. This rallying call indeed dovetails with the exhortation to support the mission of the Court as expressed in the groundbreaking and transformational Pact for the Future (resolution 79/1), adopted by the Assembly last month, outlining important reforms to the United Nations to strengthen its ability to address challenges and conflicts in a rapidly changing world. In particular, let me recall that, under Action 17 of the Pact, States Members of the United Nations pledge to fulfil their obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court and recognize the positive contribution of that institution in adjudicating inter-State disputes. Members States further decided to take appropriate steps to ensure that the Court can fully and effectively discharge its mandate and to promote awareness of its role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. This unwavering commitment to the work of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations is greatly valued by the Court, as it too, in keeping with the Secretary-General’s forward-looking vision, seeks to adapt to the twenty-first century needs of the international community. That concludes my remarks. I thank you, Mr. President, and Member States for giving me this opportunity to address the Assembly today, and I wish the Assembly every success in this seventy-ninth session.

I thank the President of the International Court of Justice.

Allow me to begin by conveying my Government’s greetings to the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Nawaf Salam. Chile is pleased to note the comprehensive report that he has presented to this General Assembly pertaining to the Court’s activities for 2023–2024 (A/79/4). In a world in which global challenges are more and more complex, Chile acknowledges the Court’s important work as a fundamental pillar in the maintenance of international peace and security, and in the development and implementation of international law. This is demonstrated by the thematic diversity of the cases that the Court has dealt with in the period under review and by the high participation of States from all regions of the world. Indeed, according to the report, 134 States, including Chile, participated in contentious or advisory proceedings before the Court. In addition, the increase in the Court’s activities, in the exercise of both its contentious and its advisory jurisdiction, clearly indicates the trust that States have in the Court, especially considering the voluntary nature of international jurisdiction. Chile recognizes that the Court, as the principal judicial body of the United Nations, plays a fundamental role in the interpretation and application of international law as an instrument to strengthen peaceful coexistence between States. In Chile’s view, the Court’s work not only provides justice, but also contributes to building a more stable global order. The Court’s reputation as an authoritative body is based on the notable expertise of its members and on its impartiality and independence — values that are clearly borne out in its work. This view has been confirmed in the various cases that have appeared before the Court. We welcome the Court’s significant responsibility and mission. However, we also acknowledge the obligation of States to comply in good faith with their international obligations resulting from the Court’s decisions, which are critical for those parties that have submitted a dispute to the Court. For this reason, Chile is concerned with the increasing number of orders for provisional measures by the Court that have not been complied with. Chile recalls that these orders, like the rulings of the Court, are binding and seek to safeguard the rights of each of the parties. Therefore, non-compliance not only jeopardizes the outcome of the process, but also threatens the foundations of the international legal system and the countless lives of those it is intended to protect. Chile wishes to highlight the important work that the Court has done in the period under review with regard to advisory proceedings, which support international law, allow for the clarification of applicable norms and guide the conduct of States in facing the new challenges of our time. In that regard, my delegation wishes to underscore the recent advisory opinion issued by the Court vis-à-vis the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, in which the Court states that the principle of self- determination of peoples, in the case of foreign occupation, constitutes an imperative norm of general international law. Although advisory opinions are non-binding, Chile still considers them to be a fundamental tool for fostering international dialogue and cooperation based on law, laying the legal foundations for the adoption of key political decisions to uphold international peace and security. In this context, we are particularly grateful for the Court’s flexibility in setting out the time frame for parties to present comments in these advisory proceedings. Considering the Court’s demanding calendar for hearings and discussions, and the high number of outstanding proceedings, we also highlight the priority that the Court always gives to the needs and requests of parties. With regard to the recent amendments to the Court’s governing documents, Chile would like to welcome in particular the inclusion in the documents of the gender perspective. We think that it is critical to guarantee equity and justice in the legal system, as it allows judges, both men and women, to address gender-related structural inequalities. In addition, the inclusion of the gender perspective in the Court’s jurisprudence not only benefits persons affected, but also strengthens the legitimacy and effectiveness of the international legal system. Moreover, Chile appreciates that the Court has clarified in its Rules the norms pertaining to incidental proceedings relating to the participation of third parties. We request the Court to consider, when relevant, authorizing third parties involved to participate in the oral proceedings. We must highlight that, ultimately, the Court’s work is not only limited to resolving cases. Through its publications and the Judicial Fellowship Programme, the Court also promotes a greater understanding of international law among States and citizens, which is critical to bringing about a culture of peace and mutual respect, in which dialogue and negotiation prevail over confrontation. In a world in which geopolitical tensions continue to rise, the Court remains a bastion of peace. Its work is a reminder that international law is not just a tool to resolve conflicts, but also a way towards achieving a fairer and more equitable future for all nations. That is why Chile will continue to support the Court in its work, and we encourage all other States to continue working together to strengthen the international justice system and to ensure that the principles of international law are respected and applied in all corners of the world.

At the outset, we would like to express our gratitude to His Excellency Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the International Court of Justice, for his presentation of the comprehensive report of the Court’s activities over the past year (A/79/4). We also commend the unwavering commitment of the judges who serve at the International Court of Justice. Over the years, the pivotal role of the International Court of Justice in resolving disputes has been widely recognized. The Court has been instrumental in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes and fostering friendly relations among nations. Throughout the past year, the Court’s engagement has been particularly significant, as described in the report. We echo the Court’s assessment that the persistent flow of new cases submitted to the Court and the significant number of judgments and orders it delivered reflect the institution’s dynamism. This reflects the confidence that Member States have in the Court’s capacity to consolidate international law as the cornerstone for peaceful coexistence among nations. We greatly appreciate the Court’s tireless efforts to ensure the sound administration of justice. Accordingly, the resources allocated to it should be proportionate to its increasingly demanding workload. Moreover, it is equally essential that all Member States uphold their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law. These obligations include the bona fide implementation of orders and judgments issued by international courts and tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, in accordance with the international treaties to which States are parties. In addition to the dispute settlement functions of the Court, another core function that warrants greater attention is the provision of advisory opinions in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations. Advisory opinions contribute significantly to the clarification of international law, including the legal aspects relating 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 existential threats 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 climate actions are imperative. It is for this reason that the General Assembly has sought an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice clarifying States’ obligations in respect of climate change and the various treaties, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The General Assembly’s request, which resulted from efforts led by Vanuatu and a core group of States, including Viet Nam, could have a profound impact on how environmental obligations under international law, specifically those related to the impacts of climate change, are interpreted. In that regard, Viet Nam considers the Court’s facilitation of the participation of concerned States and international organizations in both the written and oral proceedings to be crucial. Thus, Viet Nam and a group of States will issue a joint statement to be delivered by the representative of the Republic of Vanuatu, respectfully urging the Court to exercise flexibility and consider accommodating all States wishing to contribute to the case. We believe that the Court, apprised by diverse and unique perspectives from different States, especially developing States, which are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as Viet Nam, will be able to provide a legally balanced advisory opinion. We believe that such an opinion will shed light on unresolved legal aspects regarding climate change and establish prerequisites for more robust implementation of commitments related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It will also strengthen our collective efforts to combat climate change and enhance the role of the Court as a principal judicial organ of the United Nations, addressing a matter of enduring significance for the future of human rights. Viet Nam reaffirms its steadfast support for the critical role of the International Court of Justice in promoting international peace, stability and justice worldwide. We stand ready to work closely with other United Nations States Members and the Court in our common endeavours to enhance and uphold the rule of law at all levels.

At the outset I would like, on behalf of my delegation, to congratulate Judge Salam for his election as President of the International Court of Justice and to thank His Excellency for the delivery of the report (A/79/4), covering an unmatched year for the Court in terms of workload. The list of the pending proceedings, be they contentious or advisory, that is before the Court is longer than ever. At a time when there seems to be little reason for optimism for international lawyers, we are encouraged to see that States refer cases to the Court to settle their disputes. We are also happy to note the increased level of engagement by States, but also by international organizations with the Court proceedings, as evidenced, for example, by the multiplication of filings of requests for permission to intervene in contentious cases, or by the large number of written statements filed by both States and international organizations as part of advisory proceedings. Against this background of increased interaction with the Court, there are three points I would like to make. First, the International Court of Justice remains indeed the only international judicial mechanism with a universal vocation apt to settle in an authoritative manner inter-State disputes through the application and interpretation of international law. However, the activation of the Court jurisdictions in any given case should be done in a manner that would not distort its judicial function. In our view, key to greater participation by States in the activity of the Court in a way that it is consistent with its purpose would be increased State consent to the jurisdiction of the Court. We recall in this respect that Romania has elaborated, together with a group of nine States, a declaration on promoting the jurisdiction of the Court, which remains open for endorsement. We continue to encourage States to adhere to this declaration and to accept the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory. As proven by this initiative, Romania remains dedicated to the goal of strengthening the international justice system, which we consider crucial at a moment when the most sacrosanct norms of international law are openly defied. Secondly, States participating in the proceedings before the Court have the irrefutable obligation to respect the decisions of the Court, including the orders on provisional measures, which are legally binding. We call on State parties to proceedings before the Court to observe fully and immediately their compliance responsibility. Non-compliance undermines the authority of the Court and increases the risk of lawlessness in international relations. This would be incongruent with the values the United Nations stands for and which it promotes. Thirdly, we are concerned about the pressure that the high number of complex cases on the docket of the Court places on its resources. From this perspective, we find reasonable the request of the Court for an increase of its budget for next year and appeal that this be granted as requested. In this way, the Court would be able to manage the workload without unreasonable delays while maintaining its known professionalism. At the same time, we encourage the Court to implement measures to ensure its increased functionality, including by incorporating new technologies into its activity. In what concerns the engage of Romania with the International Court of Justice, my country takes great interest in the active cases before the Court, being a participant in some of these proceedings. Thus, after a careful appraisal of the judgment of the court dated 2 February 2024 in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Romania decided to maintain its declaration of intervention in that case. The subject matter of the dispute, for which the Court found that it has jurisdiction ratione materiae still raises important issues pertaining to the construction of the Convention of great relevance for its correct inter partes application. Equally, Romania has availed itself of the opportunity to submit a written statement in the advisory proceeding concerning obligation of States in respect of climate change and has notified the Court of its intention to take part in the oral phase of the case. Before concluding, I would like to wish a happy anniversary to the United Nations, as today we celebrate 79 years since its creation. As of that very day of 24 October 1945, the world was left with no choice between force and law but given the only option: to choose the rule for its survival. The International Court of Justice is at the heart of the international rule of law, and we must all contribute to its strength and healthy functioning. To conclude, I would like to reiterate our appreciation for the outstanding achievements of the Court during the period under review and to express our full trust in its role as promoter of justice and peace.

On behalf of the Visegrad Group, namely, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia and my own country, Poland, I thank the President of the International Court of Justice, His Excellency Judge Salam, for presenting the report on the Court’s work for the period from 1 August 2023 to 31 July 2024 (A/79/4). I have the honour to present the Visegrad countries’ views with respect to this report. The International Court of Justice, rightly called the world court, is the only international tribunal that settled disputes between 193 States Members of the United Nations. This underscores the importance of its contribution to global peace and security, especially by providing a way for countries to resolve issues without resorting to conflict. Indeed, the Court’s role in that regard cannot be overstated. This applies as well to the Court’s role in interpreting and developing international law through its jurisprudence. During the period under review, States continued to show increasing interest in turning to the Court, both for litigation and for advisory opinions, as well as in taking part in Court proceedings as interveners or through the submission of written observations. Nothing better illustrates the strength when the advisory opinion proceedings on the obligation of States in respect of climate change, for which 91 written submissions were filed with the Court, the most ever. As a result, the Court’s activity over the period under review has been unprecedented in intensity and scope, with a previously unheard of number of States participating as third parties in Court proceedings. All this shows the international community’s confidence in the Court’s adjudication. This confidence in the Court is also shared wholeheartedly by the Visegrad countries, which have always been strong supporters of international relations based on law. But if we have confidence in the Court’s wisdom and impartiality, we must also show unyielding will in implementing its judgments and decisions, including on provisional measures. This is the attitude that the Visegrad countries are calling for. The Court cannot effectively deliver justice unless States are willing to implement all of its decisions diligently and in good faith. Growing trust in the Court ought to be accompanied by more generous funding, as the tribunal — no matter how popular with its member States — cannot function properly and in timely fashion unless it is adequately financed. The Court has proven that the money allocated to it is a good investment. One wishes one could say the same of all other international institutions. Another requirement for the Court to carry out its mission is for States to accept its jurisdiction. The Visegrad countries would like to encourage countries to confer jurisdiction on the Court by including jurisdictional clauses in relevant bilateral and multilateral agreements. We also encourage countries to refrain from formulating reservations to such clauses in multilateral agreements. In conclusion, the countries of the Visegrad Group wish to express their high appreciation of the Court’s achievements and guidance in interpreting, clarifying and reinforcing international law during the period under review. We wish the Court every future success in its demanding and indispensable work.

I have the honour to speak today on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and my own country, Canada (CANZ). The CANZ countries have always been strong supporters of the International Court of Justice and its independent role in settling legal disputes submitted to it by States and providing advisory opinions on questions of international law referred to it. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the only international court with jurisdiction in general international law, the Court is a fundamental pillar of the international rules-based order. It plays a crucial role in facilitating the peaceful settlement of inter-State disputes. We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the President of the Court, Judge Salam, for his presentation of the report on the work of the Court over the past year (A/79/4). The report demonstrates the pivotal role played by the Court in the interpretation of international law and in the protection and promotion of the international rules-based order. (spoke in English) As the Court’s report outlines, its caseload continues to be demanding, spanning a wide variety of legal issues arising across a broad geography. The continued willingness of a large number of States to entrust the Court with their disputes and to participate proactively in its work reflects the strength of global confidence in the Court’s independence, in the expertise and integrity of its judges and in the rigour of its proceedings in both its contentious and its advisory jurisdiction. Furthermore, the number and range of cases continuing to be brought to the Court demonstrate its institutional significance as a mechanism for States to resolve their disagreements peacefully. CANZ countries take this opportunity to thank the members of the Court and the Court’s staff for their dedicated work and commitment to the institution. Broad support of the Court’s jurisdiction by Member States contributes to the efficient fulfilment of the Court’s primary role, the consideration of the substance of disputes. CANZ countries have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, as we recognize its centrality in the peaceful resolution of disputes and in safeguarding the rule of law. We encourage all States to continue to turn to the Court to resolve their differences where diplomatic efforts have failed. We also urge States that have not yet done so to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with its Statute. We are convinced that acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction by all States enables the Court to most effectively fulfil its crucial role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. We also wish to highlight the undertaking that all Member States have given to comply with the decisions of the Court in any case to which they are a party. This includes provisional measures orders. The implementation of the Court’s binding decisions is essential to ensuring the final resolution of disputes and reinforcing a judicial system that benefits all Member States. We expect that States’ confidence in the Court and its role in the global order will sustain the Court’s full work programme. We are aware that the Court’s caseload continues to be demanding, and we are grateful for the Court’s continued contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes. In the face of an unprecedented caseload, the international community needs to recognize that the Court’s budget and resourcing are no longer fit for purpose. We must provide the Court with the resources it needs to effectively fulfil its mandate. As the Court’s own report underscores, the persistent flow of new cases submitted to the Court and a significant number of judgments and orders it delivered during the period under review reflect the institution’s dynamism. We underline that the willingness of States to turn to the Court to resolve differences must be welcomed as an important means of ensuring our continued support for the rules-based international order. (spoke in French) In conclusion, Australia, New Zealand and Canada will continue to stand firmly behind rules-based multilateralism with the United Nations system at its core. We will continue to demand respect for international law and work together with our partners to support the institutions which make up the system, including the International Court of Justice. We will continue to work with the Court to ensure accountability and respect for the rule of law, principles to which we reiterate our unswerving commitment and which must guide our action as we face increasing numbers of emerging global challenges.

I have the privilege of speaking on behalf of the five Nordic countries, namely, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and my own country, Sweden. At the outset, allow me to thank President Nawaf Salam for his presentation of the report on the work of the International Court of Justice over the past year (A/79/4). As countries firmly committed to the rule of law and to international law, the Nordic countries continue to be long-standing supporters of the International Court of Justice. The Nordic countries recognize the crucial role that the Court plays as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Not only has the workload and the demand from States increased, but the attention that the Court receives is at an all-time high. Never have so many States and international organizations participated in the advisory proceedings before the Court. During the reporting year, no less than 134 States Members of the United Nations were involved in contentious or advisory proceedings before the Court. As stated by the President of the Court, there are currently 23 cases before the Court. They are from five continents. During the reporting period, the Court handed down two judgments and one advisory opinion and rendered no less than 27 orders. The diversity of cases pending before the Court mirrors the trust that Member States attribute to the role of the Court in settling international disputes through peaceful means and our common reliance on the multilateral system. The Court has been placed at the centre of the most pressing issues of international peace and security. We commend the Court for maintaining the highest degree of independence and professionalism in its work and urge all States to do their utmost to ensure that the Court can function effectively and remain independent from political pressure. We commend the Court’s effectiveness in dealing with the current procedural challenges arising from the unprecedented workload. At the same time, we note that the good administration of justice might be enhanced if the efforts to further modernize administrative practices of the Court continue. We encourage the Court to look for efficiencies in case management, both for the Court and for States, for example by re-evaluating the requirements regarding wet signatures and allowing digital signatures, and by considering whether virtual meetings might be an applicable format for information sessions on administrative or practical issues. It goes without saying that States concerned must comply with the Court’s provisional orders and judgments. While the Court’s decisions are only binding upon the parties concerned, the Court’s jurisprudence has significant impact as guidance, as both judgments and advisory opinions constitute an authoritative interpretation of international law. We encourage States that have not yet done so to consider accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction to enable it to fulfil its role more effectively. The United Nations system-wide strategy on gender parity aims at a more diverse and gender-balanced United Nations, and the Court should not be exempt from this objective. The Nordic countries wish to take this moment to emphasize the importance of working towards improved gender balance, also within the Court. As far as the judges are concerned, this of course requires the attention first and foremost of Member States. We support efforts for broader representation at the Court and highlight the adoption of resolution 75/129 and the establishment of the Trust Fund for the Judicial Fellowship Programme in that regard. The Nordic countries hold the work of the Court in high regard as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Through its authoritative decisions and opinions, the Court greatly contributes to the promotion of international justice globally. We commend the adoption of the Pact for the Future (resolution 79/1), whereby we all decided to take appropriate steps to ensure that the International Court of Justice can fully and effectively discharge its mandate and promote awareness of its role in the peaceful settlement of disputes, while respecting that the parties to any dispute may also resort to other peaceful means of their own choice. The Nordic countries reaffirm their continuing support to the International Court of Justice. Let me end therefore by thanking the Court again for its important work.

May I start by thanking President Salam for his leadership during what has been an exceptionally busy period for the Court. As today’s report (A/79/4) highlights, the past year has seen a significant increase in the number of States involved in both contentious and advisory proceedings. I would like, on behalf of the United Kingdom, to express my gratitude to all members of the Court and the Registry for their continued commitment to the sound administration of justice and the peaceful resolution of international disputes. Our thanks goes to them for their independence, the quality of their judgment and the central and vital role they play in our international rules-based order. The Charter of the United Nations has served as a font of inspiration for generations. Its clarion call on behalf of the people of the United Nations for a determination that we should establish conditions under which respect for international law should be maintained has never been more important. Through chapter XIV of the Charter, we sought to give real and practical effect to that aspiration by the creation of the International Court of Justice. We came from myriad distinct legal cultures and traditions to recognize that the security and prosperity of us all can be met by compliance with international law and the peaceful resolution of our disputes through international judicial means. We recognized that the world for future generations will be better when we settle disputes in courtrooms, not on battlefields. As the globe currently faces critical challenges, there has never been a more important moment for us all to reaffirm our commitment to that ideal, to the international rule of law and thus to the important work of the Court. The United Kingdom has demonstrated its support for the Court in part by accepting its compulsory jurisdiction, and I reiterate the call made by the General Assembly for States that have not yet done so to consider accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with its Statute. Our commitment to the Court and our commitment to the very highest standards in international law is such that I am delighted that the United Kingdom national group has decided to nominate Professor Dapo Akande for election to the Court for the 2027‒2036 term. The United Kingdom would once again wish to thank the President of the Court for the report and at this critical moment to reaffirm our unwavering support for its vital work.

The Chinese delegation wishes to thank President Salam for his presentation of the report on the work of the International Court of Justice (A/79/4) and pay tribute to all the judges and the staff of the Registry for diligently carrying out their duties. We also express our condolences for the untimely passing of former members of the Court, including Judge Vereshchetin and Judge Elaraby, as well as Judge Ad Hoc Verhoeven. The past year has been a remarkable year in the history of the International Court of Justice, during which the Court’s important role in the peaceful settlement of international disputes was further highlighted. The Court had an exceptionally heavy workload, admitted four new contentious cases and one advisory opinion case, delivered two judgments, one advisory opinion and 27 orders while continuing to work on 23 contentious cases and two advisory opinion cases. Fifty-one States and three international organizations took part in the oral proceedings in the advisory opinion on the occupied Palestinian territory. Eighty-three States and 12 international organizations took part in the written proceedings in the advisory opinion on climate change. The Court’s judicial activity has never been more appreciated than it is today. Never before were the Court’s judicial activities been so widely valued and so actively engaged in. During the year, the Court’s important role in the maintenance of international peace, security and justice was further highlighted. In July, the Court issued an advisory opinion on the case concerning the occupied Palestinian territories, further building on its 2004 advisory opinion on the case of the separation wall. It reaffirmed that Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories violates international law, clearly stating that Israel is obligated to end its illegal occupation as soon as possible and bear State responsibility for its unlawful actions. At the same time, it clarified the obligation of various countries and international organizations, such as the United Nations, providing legal guidance for promoting an appropriate resolution of the Israeli and Palestinian issue. This represents an important milestone. China participated in the written and oral proceedings of the case, and our relevant positions and propositions were fully reflected in the advisory opinion. This year, the Court’s important role in the future destiny of humankind has been further emphasized. Just last month, representatives of various countries convened the Summit of the Future right here, adopting the Pact for the Future (resolution 79/1), mapping out a blueprint for the future development of humankind. The Pact for the Future fully recognized the important value of the Court, makes safeguarding the Court’s authority one of the key actions to be taken in the future and decided to take appropriate steps to ensure that International Court of Justice can fully and effectively discharge its mandate. As a permanent member of the Security Council and a responsible major Power, China firmly supports the Court in fulfilling its duties in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and its Statute. We support the Court in obtaining the necessary resources and assistance to match its responsibilities and will continue to play an active and constructive role in that regard. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict continues to stir the emotions of the international community and test the conscience of humankind and the authority of international law. Currently, the Court is handling two cases directly related to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Notably between January and May, the Court issued three provisional measures in the case of South Africa versus Israel for violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, including an explicit order for Israel to cease military actions in Gaza. China emphasized that ending the occupation is not an option but an obligation and that a ceasefire is not the demand of one country but an international consensus. We look forward to the Court continuing to uphold justice and contributing to the power of law for promoting a ceasefire and ending the conflict, thereby laying a solid legal foundation for long- lasting peace in the Middle East. Currently, the international community is paying close attention to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change. In March, China submitted a written statement to the Court and will participate in the oral proceedings to be held in early December. China supports the Court in exercising its advisory jurisdiction in accordance with the law and hopes that the Court will uphold the foundational and priority status of international climate change law centred around the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), its Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement in global cooperation on combating climate change. We call for maintaining the primary role of United Nations climate negotiations as the main channel for global climate governance, promoting a coordinated and consistent interpretation and application of international law and preventing the fragmentation or inconsistency of international legal frameworks. China hopes that the Court will focus on identifying and clarifying existing law lex lata rather than developing lex ferenda. It emphasizes the importance of interpreting and applying legal issues rather than determining factual issues, with a focus on affirming the obligations of States on current international law rather than imposing new obligations through judicial lawmaking.

On behalf of France, I would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice for his presentation on the report on the Court’s activities (A/79/4). The report sheds a spotlight in the growing number of cases before the Court, both contentious and advisory, and their importance for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The increase in the Court’s activities compels us to make the following two points. First, it demonstrates the Court’s importance when it comes to the peaceful settlement of international disputes and, in particular, the trust placed in the Court by States in this respect. France would like to reiterate its deep commitment to the International Court of Justice and to its mission. By creating adequate conditions for settling inter-State disputes in accordance with international law, the Court contributes to peaceable relations between States and therefore to the maintenance of international peace and security. The Court’s fulfilment of its role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations is preconditioned on State consent. Such consent can be expressed in various ways, as per the provisions of the Court’s Statute. While the expression of this consent to is the sovereign prerogative of States, once that consent has been given, it does imply obligations. France would like to recall that States are duty-bound to uphold judgments and orders for provisional measures delivered by the Court in its contentious proceedings. Respect for judicial norms underpinned by the rule of law are at stake. The Court’s importance for the maintenance of international peace and security is also clear in the growing number of matters referred to it for advisory opinion. Although these are not binding on States and are different from judgments and should not substitute for them, they allow for a better understanding of international law and help to therefore bolster the standing of that law. The historic levels of State participation and international organizations participation in advisory opinions attest to the growing interest in this function. Secondly, the growing number of cases necessarily implies a heavier caseload for the Court. It is therefore important to ensure that the States ensure the Court is endowed with the means to fulfil its role, in line with the requirements of the proper administration of justice and without departure from the standards of excellence that it upholds. Given the current United Nations budgetary crisis, my country stands with the Court. To be specific, it would be regrettable if the growth in its activity were to affect the representation of various languages and legal traditions at the Court, since that diversity contributes to the quality of its work and to the authoritativeness of its body of decisions. In that connection and in line with Article 39 of the Court’s Statute, which provides that the official languages of the Court are French and English, France wishes to underscore the importance of the bilingualism at the Court. The presence of different cultures and legal traditions ensures that the Court is representative and authoritative. My country thus has the honour to support the candidacy of Mr. François Alabrune, current Ambassador of France to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and former Jurisconsult at the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, in the election of judges of the International Court of Justice, which is set to take place in November 2026. Mr. François Alabrune is of recognized competence in international law and possesses all the attributes of rigour, independence, impartiality and integrity required to discharge judicial duties at the International Court of Justice. At a time when multilateralism is being challenged, the International Court of Justice remains an institution that is essential to peace and to the international legal order, to which my country reaffirms once again its full support. I take this opportunity, on behalf of France, to reiterate to the Court, its President and all its staff our gratitude for the work accomplished.

It is an honour for me to speak on behalf of the Kingdom of Spain on agenda item 37. I thank President Salam for the presentation of the report on the activities of the International Court of Justice for the period of 1 August 2023 to 31 July 2024 (A/79/4). We align ourselves with the statement to be made on behalf of the European Union, and I wish to make the following remarks in my national capacity. Spain would like to highlight the work carried out by the International Court of Justice in the period covered by the report, during which the Court delivered two judgments in contentious proceedings — one on the merits and the other on preliminary objections — one advisory opinion and 27 orders. That enumeration of the decisions given by the International Court of Justice speaks to the fact that it is a living institution, which actively contributes to the purpose for which it was established. The report also provides further data that confirm that assessment. First, during the last 12 months, 134 States from all groups of States participated before the Court in one of the capacities for which the Statute provides in contentious or advisory proceedings. Secondly, the cases brought before the International Court of Justice address a wide range of subjects and concern questions relating to the basic components and sources of international law, State-related aspects, the application of international law and concrete subject matters. As President Salam put it in his recent address to the Permanent Representatives accredited to the United Nations, the Court has addressed complex and current legal issues and has served as a guiding light in the peaceful resolution of disputes. What is more, the International Court of Justice, the President went on to say, has given real meaning to the principles of international law. Its decisions undoubtedly reaffirm the importance of the rule of law and reinforce the idea of international justice since, through those decisions, States are held accountable and contribute to consolidating international law. The number of those States that recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court still must increase. Spain is one such State. Furthermore, we must point out that States that are parties in contentious proceedings are duty-bound comply with the decisions of the Court, including those laying down provisional measures. Likewise, the organs of the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular, must discharge the relevant duties that the Charter has conferred upon them. In recent years Spain has played an active part before the International Court of Justice — clear proof of our desire to assist it in its crucial task of contributing to the peaceful settlement of disputes and of clarifying the rules and standards of international law. Spain has thus participated in the proceedings instituted by the General Assembly that culminated in the advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 on the Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. It is now important to give effect to the determinations set out in the advisory opinion, and in that regard Spain intends to respond to the Secretariat’s request concerning the way in which effect is being given to them. Similarly, Spain has filed a statement in the advisory proceedings on the Obligations of States in respect of climate change and the Right to strike under ILO Convention No. 87, which have reached different procedural stages. Moreover, pursuant to article 63 of the Statute, Spain has also intervened in contentious proceedings to which it is not a State party. It did so alongside 31 other States in the case entitled Allegations of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), and, like five other countries, it has applied to intervene in the case entitled Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Spain’s participation in all those cases is motivated by the principle of consistency and a desire to support the International Court of Justice in its vital endeavours. Lastly, allow me to refer to the need to support multilingualism in the work of the Court in line with the resolution on multilingualism adopted by the General Assembly in September (resolution 78/330). Spain is of the view that a universal language such as Spanish must have a presence at the International Court of Justice, both as a working language and, in the long term, as an official language.

I thank President Salam for his presentation of the informative report on the International Court of Justice (A/79/4) and congratulate him on his election as President of the Court. Before I continue, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the recent passing of Judge Elaraby and Judge Vereshchetin and recognize their many years of service. The United States is pleased to have this opportunity to recognize the Court for its contributions to the peaceful settlement of disputes and the promotion of the rule of international law. The Court serves a critical function in helping to resolve disputes submitted to it by States. More and more, we see those disputes being brought under international human rights instruments. They include cases brought under Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. We also see more States exercising the right under Article 63 of the Court’s Statute to intervene and provide the Court with views as to the appropriate scope and meaning of those multilateral conventions. At the same time, both the General Assembly and other authorized organizations in the United Nations system are looking to the Court for advice on matters of great importance and with greater frequency. Mirroring the trend in States’ growing participation in contentious proceedings, an increasing number of United Nations Member States, as well as international organizations, are sharing their views in advisory opinion proceedings through submissions to the Court. The Court is at the same time being asked to opine on issues of great importance. Among those is the matter of climate change, which is of the highest priority for the United States, both at home and abroad, and an existential threat to our planet. The more than 150 written submissions the Court has received in connection with that advisory proceeding highlight the world’s shared recognition of the gravity of the climate crisis as well as the complexity of the issues presented. In July 2024, the Court also provided the General Assembly an advisory opinion on questions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Court recognized the important roles that the Security Council and the General Assembly have played in considering how to promote lasting peace and the full realization of the Palestinian right to self-determination. As the Security Council has repeatedly underscored, a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be achieved through negotiations between the two parties, negotiations grounded in basic principles, including the notion of land for peace. The United States reiterates its commitment to work vigorously and with determination to support direct talks between the parties towards negotiations on a two-State solution that would permanently resolve the conflict, and further emphasizes that unilateral measures only serve to undermine the prospect of a two-State solution. As the Court convenes proceedings on a growing range of topics, we recognize it faces new challenges in managing its docket, and we welcome discussions as to how States can best support the Court as it tackles those and other challenges. The Court continues to serve as a core component of the international judicial system, and we extend our appreciation to the Court and its staff for their service to the international community and the promotion of the rule of law.

Let me begin by thanking President Salam for presenting the report on the activity of the International Court of Justice over the past year (A/79/4). I wish to pay tribute to him, the members of the Court and its staff for their continuing commitment to the Court’s vital role in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Ireland acknowledges the growing caseload of the Court. Its extensive docket reflects the complexity of contemporary international life, including its disputes and conflicts. In that environment, the International Court of Justice — as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations — clearly assists in fulfilling one of the purposes of the Organization. That purpose, set out in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, is to bring about, by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace. We recognize also that the growing trend of States resorting to the Court in disputes threatening international peace and security reflects circumstances in which the Security Council has, regrettably, found it increasingly difficult to perform its primary responsibility. We think it reasonable, therefore, to assume that that trend will continue for the time being. I wish to comment briefly on the growing recourse to the Court’s advisory jurisdiction. In the past 50 years, the Court has received 15 requests for advisory opinions. But of those 15, 5 have been requested in the past five years alone. That relative surge in requests for advisory opinions clearly stems from a demand by States that international life be regulated by law and that international disputes be resolved justly, in accordance with relevant legal principles, in matters in which other means of achieving that are — for different reasons — not currently available. While it is true that those opinions are not legally binding per se, being advisory in nature, they are, nevertheless, authoritative statements of customary international law in many cases, which is binding — on all States. The authority of those statements of the law derives not just from the fact that they issue from the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Ultimately, their authority rests on the quality of the Court’s reasoning. As Judge Tanaka noted in the landmark Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) case more than 50 years ago, the most important function of the Court is to be found not only in the settlement of concrete disputes, but also in its reasoning, through which it may contribute to the development of international law. When the Court provides reasoned, authoritative clarification of international law in that way, all States must consider whether their own conduct requires adjustment as a consequence. That is an essential function of the advisory opinion. Moreover, the identification by the Court in advisory proceedings of relevant legal principles provides a solid foundation for the just — and therefore enduring — resolution of international disputes. In that way, power imbalances between parties to disputes are not the deciding factor. With regard to the budget of the Court, the Court is faced with ever-increasing demands on its resources, and it is in that context that Ireland strongly supports the Court’s request for a modest increase in its budget. Not only has the number of cases — both contentious and advisory — steadily increased in recent years, judicial activity within each stage of a case has also increased. There are more requests for the indication of provisional measures, and there are more third-party interventions, all leading to more court time and increased demands for interpretation and translation. All of that activity entails cost. We are ready to work closely with others to ensure that the Court is adequately funded to carry out its important work. Failure to provide additional resources can only lead to delays in cases with undesirable — and avoidable — consequences. In conclusion, I wish to reiterate Ireland’s strong support for the Court’s vital role in international life. We commend President Salam and all members of the Court for their invaluable contribution to the continued development of international law.

At the outset, I would like to express Slovenia’s appreciation to His Excellency Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the International Court of Justice, for his leadership and comprehensive presentation of the report (A/79/4). During the period under review, the Court has addressed a significant number of important procedural and substantive matters, demonstrating the confidence of Member States in its ability to administer justice. In times of growing tension and conflict, the Court’s impartial role in promoting peaceful outcomes is indispensable. By adjudicating disputes in accordance with international law, the Court promotes justice, reinforces accountability and contributes to global peace and security. Slovenia emphasizes the emerging trend of engagement with the Court through Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Those Articles allow States not directly involved in a case to participate in proceedings and contribute to the Court’s efforts to provide legal guidance and promote the application of international law to address global challenges. Slovenia is proud to be among the States actively participating in those proceedings. Increasing complexity and workload place significant demands on the Court. While the Court’s proactive approach to case management and continuous review of working methods help meet those challenges, sufficient resources are essential to effectively support the Court’s work. The Court’s handling of cases related to territorial disputes, human rights violations and environmental protection demonstrates its far-reaching influence in addressing a wide range of contemporary challenges. Furthermore, its advisory opinions play a critical role in clarifying complex legal issues and guiding States in the fulfilment of their international obligations, thereby helping to prevent conflicts and promote peaceful coexistence. An important aspect of the Court’s work is its ability to indicate provisional measures, which ensure the interim protection of the rights of the parties and prevent further harm while the case is under consideration. Slovenia firmly believes that full compliance with provisional measures as indicated by the Court is crucial, as selective adherence undermines the integrity of international justice and the very foundations of the international legal order. Slovenia reaffirms its strong support for the Court and its work. The continued vitality of the Court depends on the collective commitment of all Member States. Only through our joint efforts can we ensure that the Court remains a cornerstone of justice and a pillar of the international legal framework.

We thank the President of the International Court of Justice for presenting the report of the Court (A/79/4). Through the report, we see the importance and diversity of the subjects dealt with by the Court. That is a testimony both to the confidence placed in it by States and to the competence of its judges and Registry. In recent years, the Court has seen an unprecedented increase in its workload. It will be important to ensure adequate funding in order to preserve the quality of the Court’s proceedings. The Court’s activity over the past year has been rich in every respect. In particular, I note the three advisory opinions that the Court has been working on. The option for the General Assembly to request an advisory opinion is a fundamental aspect of the promotion of the rule of law at the international level. In that context, States and international organizations have the opportunity to submit written statements and observations and to participate in oral proceedings. In that way, they can both collaborate with the Court and ensure that their views are duly taken into account. It is gratifying to note the high level of engagement of the international community in the advisory proceedings, with more than 250 written statements or observations submitted to the Court in the past three advisory proceedings. By offering the option to obtain legal clarity on a given situation, the Court enables the entire international community to participate in the clarification and development of international law and, by doing so, in the strengthening of peaceful relations among States. Switzerland has long supported the Court’s work. That support is part of a foreign policy aimed at encouraging the peaceful resolution of disputes and promoting the rule of law and international law. Strengthened by that conviction, Switzerland took part this year in the three advisory proceedings with which the Court has been seized. I would like to take this opportunity, as Switzerland regularly does, to encourage all States that have not yet done so to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction. A declaration to that effect is of the utmost importance. It ensures the peaceful resolution of disputes within the international community. It helps to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained. It enables us to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security. However, such a declaration is not only of the utmost importance. It is also simple and flexible. The handbook on accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, written by several States, including Switzerland, is available in all United Nations languages on the Court’s website. It will be of assistance to any interested State in best meeting its specific needs. It is by doing everything possible to ensure the peaceful resolution of disputes that we will be able to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.

It is an honour to deliver this statement in my national capacity before the Assembly and President Nawaf Salam of the International Court of Justice. My delegation wishes to take this opportunity to congratulate President Salam, along with Vice-President Julia Sebutinde, on their elections earlier this year. We recognize and highly appreciate the able leadership of the President of the Court and wish to thank him for the presentation of the informative report on the judicial activities carried out by the Court during this reporting period (A/79/4). The increasing caseload of the Court is a reflection of two important realities. On the one hand, it highlights the rising tensions and emerging challenges, often times complex, faced by our world today. On the other hand, it reflects the value that States place in the Court, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, in the maintenance of peaceful dispute settlement and the rendering of advisory opinions — two of the core functions of the Court. In that light, Thailand wishes to highlight the following points. First, the work of the Court is of major importance to international law and inter- State relations. The Court’s work sheds light on issues of legal complexity and contributes to the maintenance of international peace and security and to friendly relations and cooperation among States — fundamental purposes of the United Nations, as enshrined in its Charter. Thailand therefore follows closely the work of the Court and will continue to do so with great attention. Secondly, while only States may be parties in cases before the Court, as provided for in Article 34, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the Court’s decisions affect the rights and interests of peoples, beyond solely those of States. That is also evinced, for example, through the Court’s advisory functions. My delegation looks forward to hearing the views of the President of the Court on this matter when he addresses the Sixth Committee tomorrow. Thirdly, and closely related to my previous point, Thailand highly values the Court’s advisory opinions and recognizes them as an instrument for preventive diplomacy. Although advisory opinions have no binding force, they carry legal weight and provide authoritative guidance on key international legal questions. They also inform the decisions of States and international organizations. It is against that backdrop that Thailand is participating in the Court’s advisory proceedings on the obligations of States in respect of climate change. We view the work of the Court on this issue as timely and of the utmost importance, given the intensifying impacts of climate change. We will continue our constructive and active participation at the oral hearings. We look forward to sharing our legal perspectives and contributing to this organ of international law, which has significant implications for all humankind. Moreover, this upcoming historic event reflects the Court’s willingness to listen to the views of all States, its accessibility and increased engagement with relevant stakeholders, which we truly commend. Fourthly, last week the Sixth Committee held a debate, under the rule-of-law agenda item, on the subtopic “the full, equal and equitable participation at all levels in the international legal system”. My delegation took the opportunity to call for greater gender parity in that regard. Indeed, women are underrepresented in the legal profession, especially at higher positions, whether at the domestic or international level. In the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, which I head, women make up 58.4 per cent of our team, but, strikingly, in its entire history, there have been only two legal advisers. It is crucial, therefore, to foster an environment where women can advance to leadership positions, serving as role models and strengthening the legal community as a whole to be more inclusive — an objective that my delegation and I, personally, are committed to supporting. In conclusion, Thailand reiterates its appreciation to the Court in discharging its functions. We stand ready to contribute our part for the advancement of the rule of law, the maintenance of international peace and security and the better welfare of our people at its core.

The International Court of Justice is an indispensable organ for the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the promotion of international peace and justice. The work of its judges and officials in general contributes directly to the strengthening of the rule of law at the international level. We thank Judge Nawaf Salam for presenting his report (A/79/4), which once again highlights the crucial role of the Court as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. During the period under review, the challenges and threats to the global order have been many and very serious. The Court’s work underscores not only the relevance of its mandate but also its effectiveness in addressing crises when the other political organs of the United Nations are overwhelmed or paralysed, as has been the case with the Security Council. The Court’s efficiency and diligence in managing its growing workload, in particular its efforts to optimize internal procedures, deserve special recognition. That has meant that, on average, the time between the completion of oral hearings and the issuance of decisions does not exceed six months, despite the complexity of the cases presented. We highlight three key decisions in the report presented to us by the Court: two judgments in the context of the cases between Ukraine and the Russian Federation and the advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. Those decisions and the advisory opinion, issued with the full weight and authority that the Court represents as a guarantor of international law, should contribute to peacebuilding. The Court does not only promote international law. In many cases, it is the only entity that has the potential to render justice to all States, regardless of their size or global influence. The agreement to return the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, largely as a result of the Court’s advisory opinion, is a great example of its restitutive power. The high level of compliance with its judgments makes the Court the most effective organ of the United Nations system, which is of enormous merit to the international community. On the other hand, the Court plays a great role in promoting education and training in international law. The Judicial Fellowship Programme, which offers young jurists from around the world the opportunity to learn directly from the Court, is an initiative that Mexico supports. The fact that the Court incorporates participants from various developing countries is fundamental to achieve true diversity and inclusion in points of view and legal schools in the progressive construction and development of international law. It is necessary to ensure that future generations of internationalists come from and bring a wide range of national, regional and global contexts and perspectives. I wish to seize this opportunity to fully endorse the view expressed by the representative of Thailand, who preceded me, as it relates to incorporating and improving genuine inclusion and gender equality in the Court’s work. In Mexico’s view, that is also fundamental. Our region, Latin America, has always shown great respect and deference to the Court. That demonstrates Latin America’s pacifist vocation, where disputes are settled by peaceful means and not through the use of force. That has been endorsed by Mexico when it resorted to the Court after the serious and violent assault by Ecuador on the Mexican Embassy in Quito, in violation of international law, a case that is currently sub judice. Mexico resorted to the Court precisely because it trusts in its impartiality and its capacity to impart justice. Given the relevance of the issues under the Court’s consideration, Mexico has decided to get involved and actively participate in several processes, including the advisory opinions regarding the obligations of states with respect to climate change and the right to strike under Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization. Mexico has also requested to intervene in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). In these times, when it is urgent to respect the validity and strength of the rule of law, it is truly inadmissible that only 74 States recognize the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. To bet on the Court is to bet on a just global order, anchored in international law. That is why Mexico is part of the core group led by Romania that promotes the acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. It is also essential to return to the practice of including jurisdiction clauses in the negotiation of new international treaties. Legal certainty also serves as a confidence-building measure; nothing is more urgent in these times of crisis, war and atrocities. In conclusion, Mexico reaffirms its full support for the International Court of Justice, which remains an essential pillar of the multilateral system and the rule of law in international relations. Its work is fundamental for the preservation of peace, security and international justice, as well as for the realization of the motives and aspirations that gave rise to the creation of the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations is not abstract. The validity of its provisions remains paramount, and the Court is here precisely to remind us that, when politics and diplomacy fail, there is always hope in the legal and moral force of the law.

Luxembourg fully aligns itself with the statement to be made by the observer of the European Union. Allow me, nonetheless, to add to it by putting forward some considerations in my national capacity. I thank the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Nawaf Salam, for his annual report on the Court’s activities (A/79/4). The period under review was marked by intense activity by the Court — proof of its ever-expanding role in the application and interpretation of international law. The geographical distribution of cases brought before the Court and their varied subject-matter reflect the universal and general nature of its jurisdiction. In that respect, I wish to reaffirm Luxembourg’s unwavering support for the Court in its role of principal judicial organ of the United Nations, which the Charter confers upon it. Now, more than ever, it is necessary to uphold the principles and values enshrined in the Charter and international law. The Court is an essential guarantor of an international legal order based on the rule of law. Interventions before the Court are particularly important when it comes to multilateral instruments, since the Court’s interpretation of a dispute before it constitutes a precedent that binds the other parties. The Court’s role in that respect is all the more crucial when what is at issue is peremptory norms involving the integrity of the international legal order as a whole. Accordingly, Luxembourg filed written observations in the case entitled Allegations of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). Luxembourg also filed a written statement with the Court in connection with the request for an advisory opinion on Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. Whereas the Court’s contribution to the development of international law is indisputable. However, its contribution to the judicial settlement of disputes can be effective only if the parties to the dispute give immediate and full effect to the Court’s judgments and orders. Selective implementation represents a retrograde step for the rule of law. Luxembourg therefore urges all those States whose disputes are before the Court to comply with the judgments and all of its orders indicating provisional measures. As others have done, I must underscore the Court’s order of 16 March 2022 indicating provisional measures, including one requiring Russia to immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 on Ukrainian territory. We call on Russia to comply with that legally binding order. The advisory opinion issued by the Court on 19 July 2024 in response to the request from the Assembly is very clear. First and foremost, the Court determined that the continued presence of the State of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory is illegal, that the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring an end to that illegal presence as rapidly as possible and that the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activity and to evacuate all settlers from the occupied Palestinian territory. We call on Israel and all States Members of the United Nations to take measures to give effect to the Court’s advisory opinion. It is Luxembourg’s belief that more widespread acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court would place it in a position it to implement its mandate with even greater effectiveness by allowing it to go beyond matters of jurisdiction and to consider the merits of disputes with greater celerity. Luxembourg was one of the very first States to recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in a declaration signed on 15 September 1930, during the era of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Accordingly, I would like to take the opportunity to encourage those States that have not yet done so to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.

Allow me to start by expressing Germany’s sincere thanks to His Excellency President Salam. He has successfully steered the International Court of Justice through difficult times since assuming office in February 2024. The international legal order remains under considerable pressure, as do the basic principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nation, such as respect for human rights, the sovereign equality of States and the prohibition of the use of force. At the same time, the call for international courts and tribunals seem to have become increasingly loud and even more frequent. In particular, the International Court of Justice, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, is more sought-after than ever. With 23 cases currently pending before the Court, we have reached a record high. To Germany, that is an encouraging development. It speaks not only to the prestige of the Court but, beyond that, to the truth that States have high expectations of international justice. It is, however, not only that the number of cases increased over the past few years — rather, the way in which States participate in proceedings before the International Court of Justice seems to have changed. While there are still classic bilateral matters before the Court, more and more States are initiating or engaging in proceedings in which so-called “community interests” are at stake. Requests for advisory opinions are more frequent. The role of the Court might, therefore, be undergoing a more fundamental change. Germany has engaged with the Court in various proceedings in the last year. First, in November 2023, Germany intervened with five partners in a case brought by the Gambia against Myanmar under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. We wish to commend the Gambia for having brought the matter before the Court. With our partners, we decided to support the International Court of Justice by submitting our interpretation of the Convention in this legally complex matter. In doing so, we were demonstrating our commitment to preventing, investigating and combating possible genocide. The joint intervention by six States was a first in the history of the International Court of Justice. We believe that it is a strong sign of support for the role of the International Court of Justice. Secondly, Germany participated in the written proceedings in the International Court of Justice’s advisory proceedings on the obligations of States in respect to climate change. The Court, in that case, is engaged in a matter of truly global concern. More than 90 States and international organizations have submitted their views to the Court — yet another record for the International Court of Justice. The broad participation illustrates the international community’s shared concern about climate change, but also States’ convictions that international law can provide guidance on the global threats we face. Germany intends to also contribute in the oral proceedings. Thirdly, alongside 21 other States, Germany has decided to intervene in the merits stage of the case brought by Ukraine against Russia in the aftermath of the illegal invasion of February 2022. That case, also, is based on the 1948 Genocide Convention. To us, given our past, Russia’s abuse of the concept of genocide in the attempt to justify aggression is truly intolerable. Germany therefore welcomes the fact that the Court earlier this year decided to entertain the case on the merits. The International Court of Justice will now have the opportunity to scrutinize the allegations put forward by Russia and to determine the actual truth. Finally, we have also found ourselves before the Court in a case brought before it by Nicaragua in the context of the Gaza conflict. Germany approached that case as a firm believer in the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the highest respect for the International Court of Justice, because of its sound and consistent administration of justice. Germany has always been a strong advocate of the promotion and strengthening of international humanitarian law and humanitarian principles. That is also what guides us in our political response to the conflict in Gaza. Germany is doing its utmost to live up to its responsibilities vis-à-vis both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Germany will continue to do so and is ready to lay out and explain its position in all necessary detail in the further proceedings before the Court. For Germany, the increase of cases before the Court is a welcome and encouraging development. It is a chance to strengthen the international rule of law, and Germany stands ready to support that. Of course, Germany appreciates that the growing caseload also comes with challenges for the Court. The Court has thus far demonstrated that it is up to those challenges. The International Court of Justice is the main instrument for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States. Let us all work together in order to ensure that the Court can continue to play its crucial role in upholding international law.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers this afternoon at 3 p.m. in this Hall, after the consideration of agenda item 64, entitled “Zone of peace, trust and cooperation of Central Asia”. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 73.