Sixth Committee Summary record of the 16th meeting Held at Headquarters, New York, on Friday, 26 October 2007, at 10 a.m. Chairman: Mr. Tulbure (Moldova) later: Ms. Orina (Vice-Chairman) (Kenya) Contents ... Agenda item 108: Measures to eliminate international terrorism (continued) The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. ... Agenda item 108: Measures to eliminate international terrorism (continued) Oral report of the Chairman of the Working Group 111. Mr. Perera (Sri Lanka) recalled that, at its first meeting, the Committee had decided to establish a working group with a view to finalizing the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 54/110, to continue considering the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations to formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. The Working Group was open to all States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It had held three meetings, at which it had had before it the reports of the Ad Hoc Committee on its sixth and eleventh sessions (A/57/37 and A/62/37), as well as the report of the Chairman of the Working Group during the sixty-first session of the General Assembly, reflected in the summary records of the Sixth Committee (A/C.6/61/SR.21). It had also had before it two letters from the Permanent Representative of Egypt, one addressed to the Secretary-General (A/60/329) and the other to the Chairman of the Sixth Committee (A/C.6/60/2). 112. At its first meeting, on 11 October 2007, the Working Group had decided to proceed with its discussion on outstanding issues relating to the draft comprehensive convention and then go on to consider the question of convening a high-level conference. At its second meeting, on 15 October 2007, the Working Group had received a report from the Coordinator on the results of the intersessional bilateral contacts regarding the draft comprehensive convention. On 16 and 17 October 2007, he, as Chairman, together with the Coordinator of the draft comprehensive convention, Ms. Telalian, had had bilateral contacts with interested delegations on the outstanding issues. At its third meeting, on 18 October 2007, the Working Group had received a report on the results of the bilateral contacts, followed by an exchange of views among delegations and a discussion on the question of convening a high-level conference. 113. The purpose of the intersessional bilateral contacts had been to gain further insights into the views of delegations on the elements of the non-paper on the draft comprehensive convention that had been presented during the eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Committee and to ascertain whether those elements could form the basis of an overall package which would help to move the process forward. During the discussions, which had focused mainly on draft article 18, some members had been concerned that the use of ambiguous language would leave the implementation of the draft convention open to abuse. 114. In her briefing on the intersessional contacts, on 15 October 2007, the Coordinator had explained that an effort had been made to bridge the different views held by delegations and had stressed that the draft convention had been designed to serve as a law enforcement instrument that would operate in the context of other existing legal regimes. 115. In her statement on 18 October 2007, she had noted that the purpose of the informal bilateral contacts had been to clarify how the elements of the non-paper sought to be contextualized in the scheme under the draft convention, in the light of views expressed, during both the Committee’s debate on measures to eliminate international terrorism and the bilateral contacts. The concerns expressed had included the importance of safeguarding the right of peoples to self-determination, the need to take into account “State terrorism”, the satisfactory resolution of matters concerning potential impunity of military forces of a State and the need to distinguish clearly between activities falling within the scope of the draft convention and those governed by international humanitarian law. 116. She had explained that, in the overall scheme of the draft comprehensive convention, all those aspects were addressed in draft article 18, whose constituent elements had to be read as a whole: it would be incomplete if it was not related to the other articles of the draft convention, in particular draft article 2, which provided, for the purpose of the draft convention, the criminal law definition of acts of terrorism. Draft article 18, read in conjunction with draft article 2, had merely excluded from the scope of the convention certain activities that were regulated by other fields of law, it being understood that the draft instrument would have to operate in the context of an overall international legal framework where other rules of international law were also applicable. An attempt had been made in draft article 18 to safeguard, as far as possible, the application of such other law, by not rendering unlawful otherwise lawful acts under such law. At the same time it had sought to close any loopholes that might open possibilities for impunity for certain categories of persons. 117. The Coordinator had noted that paragraph 1 of draft article 18, which stated that nothing in the convention should affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States, peoples and individuals under international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter and international humanitarian law, was not contentious. It served to determine what was excluded from the scope of the draft convention, including exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. 118. The definition of acts of terrorism in draft article 2 included acts undertaken by “any person”. By excluding certain activities of armed forces in paragraph 2 of draft article 18, it reflected the clear understanding that such activities were governed by other rules of international law. It had nevertheless been found useful also to address the question of “military forces of a State”, that was to say activities of “armed forces of a State” in peacetime and other persons covered by the definition of “military forces of a State” in article 1 of the draft convention. Moreover, under paragraph 3 of draft article 18, activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they were governed by other rules of international law, were not governed by the draft convention. It had been pointed out that in practically all jurisdictions military forces of a State were subject to a code of conduct separate from civilians and that that the phrase “inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law” embraced conduct that might be both lawful and unlawful under international law. Read in conjunction with paragraph 4, that provision did not make lawful otherwise unlawful acts, but simply recognized that other laws would apply and did not preclude prosecution under such laws. The addition proposed to paragraph 4, in the text submitted during the 2007 session of the Ad Hoc Committee, namely the reference to the fact that “acts which would amount to an offence as defined in article 2 of this Convention remain punishable under such laws”, together with the new preambular language based on the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, sought to buttress the fact that there was an inner core of conduct which, if committed, would constitute a punishable offence, irrespective of the regime that would apply. 119. The Coordinator had further stressed that paragraph 2 of draft article 18 already established a demarcation between what was covered by the draft convention and activities of armed forces during armed conflict, “as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law”. However, in order to provide further clarity a new paragraph 5, framed as a “without prejudice clause”, had been added during the 2007 session of the Ad Hoc Committee. That paragraph consisted of a general “without prejudice” statement which had subsequently been elucidated with regard to rules of international law applicable for certain acts that would be lawful under international humanitarian law. It had been clarified that the term “lawful” in that context should, from an international humanitarian law perspective, properly be understood with its double negative connotation as “not unlawful acts”, since international humanitarian law did not in a literal sense define which acts were “lawful”, but defined which acts were prohibited. However, in view of the need to distinguish those acts that were “unlawful” under paragraph 1 of draft article 2, the term “lawful” in paragraph 5 had been used as being more appropriate in the circumstances. That paragraph, together with draft article 18 as a whole, had been drafted in such a way as to provide the necessary direction to those that would be responsible for the implementation of the draft convention. It would be for the parties and consequently the judicial authorities to make interpretations in the light of the circumstances in specific cases. The key consideration was that international humanitarian law should not be prejudiced by the draft convention. 120. Some delegations had expressed support for the proposal made by the Coordinator during the eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Committee (A/62/37, annex B, para. 14), which they had considered to constitute a good basis for reaching a compromise solution on the text. It had been noted that the elements, together with the explanations provided by the Coordinator, offered a satisfactory clarification that the draft comprehensive convention did not interfere with the regime of international humanitarian law. The point had also been made that that clarification provided by the Coordinator offered a breakthrough in the deliberations and should be part of the travaux préparatoires of the draft convention. 121. Some other delegations had expressed doubt whether the proposal sufficiently addressed their concerns, in particular the need to distinguish clearly between activities falling within the scope of the draft convention and those governed by international humanitarian law. It had also been pointed out that the proposal still contained ambiguous language that might leave the implementation of the draft convention open to uncertainties. It had been acknowledged that there was need to study the proposal further, in the light of the clarifications provided by the Coordinator during the briefing, together with the proposal. Notwithstanding the difficulties, delegations had remained committed to the ongoing process and had supported the efforts for the early conclusion of the draft comprehensive convention. Several delegations had noted that the format of informal bilateral contacts constituted a constructive and satisfactory mechanism for advancing the process. 122. At its third meeting, on 18 October 2007, the Working Group had considered the question of the convening of a high-level conference, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 61/40, following the proposal to convene a special session of the General Assembly to examine and adopt an action plan for cooperation against terrorism. 123. The representative of Egypt had recalled that, although many international and regional conventions aiming to fight terrorism had been adopted, the number of terrorist acts had continued to increase, particularly in the most recent past; moreover, the comprehensive convention had not been yet finalized. Accordingly, it had been felt to be still necessary to strengthen international cooperation in order to combat terrorism in all its aspects, and not only from the security angle. The view had been expressed that the political, legal, social and economic aspects of the issue needed to be linked and that, in discussions within the United Nations system, the required balance had been lacking. 124. The representative of Egypt had stressed the key importance of sending a clear and strong message from the international community, which could take the form of an action plan and a declaration to be adopted during the proposed high-level conference. The sponsor delegation had noted that it was timely and relevant to convene such a high-level conference on the subject. 125. Some delegations had expressed their support for Egypt’s proposal, observing that such a conference would offer an opportunity to look at the issue from a global perspective, as well as to define terrorism. It had been noted in that connection that terrorism could only be effectively combated on the basis of a holistic approach. Some delegations had emphasized that the convening of the conference should not be linked with, or deferred until, the adoption of the comprehensive convention but would, on the contrary, be a good opportunity to resolve outstanding issues. 126. Some other delegations, while not opposed in principle to the proposal, had maintained that such a conference should take place after the adoption of the comprehensive convention and that efforts should continue to focus on its negotiation. It had also been pointed out that, following the adoption of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, more time and resources needed to be devoted to its implementation rather than to the convening of another conference. 127. He expressed his confidence that the text proposed by the Coordinator at the last session of the Ad Hoc Committee, together with the very useful additional clarifications presented during the Working Group, contained the potential to facilitate agreement on the elements of an overall package and called on delegates to demonstrate the necessary political will to that end. The meeting rose at 12.45 p.m.   sss1 \* MERGEFORMAT A/C.6/62/SR.16 sss1 \* MERGEFORMAT A/C.6/62/SR.16 FooterJN \* MERGEFORMAT 07-56547 \* MERGEFORMAT 4 \* MERGEFORMAT 3 FooterJN \* MERGEFORMAT 07-56547 United Nations A/C.6/62/SR.16 General Assembly Sixty-second session Official Records Distr.: General 19 November 2007 Original: English This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned within one week of the date of publication to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza, and incorporated in a copy of the record. Corrections will be issued after the end of the session, in a separate corrigendum for each Committee. jobn \* MERGEFORMAT 07-56547 (E) Barcode \* MERGEFORMAT *0756547* Word.Document.8 \s Word.Document.8 \s Word.Document.8 \s Word.Document.8 \s Word.Document.8 \s Word.Document.8 \s Word.Document.8 \s