EventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches20042005200620072008Media contact informationMinisters releasesPublications
Mr Chairman,
We thank the International Law Commission and its members for the report on the work of its sixtieth session and thank its Chairman, Mr Edmundo Vargas Carreño, for his introductory speech. We also wish to thank the Codification Division for the valuable support they have provided to the Commission.
At this, the sixtieth session of the International Law Commission, it is timely to reflect on the significant contribution the Commission has made in the advancing the codification, progressive development and dissemination of international law over the past 60 years. In that regard, I am pleased to inform you that the 60th anniversary of the Commission was marked in New Zealand this year at the Beeby Colloquium. This event, honours Mr Christopher Beeby, one of New Zealand’s most distinguished international lawyers, and provides an opportunity for the New Zealand international law community to come together to discuss issues of current interest.
New Zealand considers that it is important that enhanced dialogue between the Commission and the Sixth Committee is continued. In particular, we support the idea of an informal meeting of Legal Advisers which discusses in detail topics on the agenda of the Commission with the Special Rapporteurs for the topics concerned. We also support the suggestion that Special Rapporteurs are funded to attend a dedicated segment of meetings of the Sixth Committee to enable interactive debate with representatives of Governments during the Sixth Committee’s consideration of their topics.
The work of the Special Rapporteurs is central to the Commission’s ability to fulfil its mandate. It is appropriate that their work be assisted with appropriate financial support. New Zealand therefore continues to support the suggestion repeated this year by the Chairman of the Commission that honoraria be restored to Special Rapporteurs.
We are very conscious that the Sixth Committee debate on the report of the ILC is both the centre piece of the work of Committee, and an important part of the Commission’s deliberative process. It is one of the only ways in which Commission members receive feedback from States on the progress and direction of their work. It is important, therefore, that States’ representatives have adequate opportunity to consider and obtain instructions on the year’s work of the Commission. In that regard, we note that as the work of the Commission becomes more varied and complex, it is becoming increasingly difficult to respond to the Commission’s report in a meaningful manner in the short time-frame provided. To this end, we urge the Commission and the Secretariat to explore ways of providing a longer time period between the availability of the Commission’s Report and this Sixth Committee debate. Hurried analysis without the benefit of expert input is not useful to the Commission or to the Committee.
I will now address briefly the long-term programme of work, and the two topics discussed in the initial chapters of the debate – shared natural resources, and the effects of armed conflicts on treaties.
We welcome the establishment of the Study Group on the Most-favoured-nation (MFN) clause under the chairmanship of Mr Don McRae. We are fortunate that there is a Chair with Mr McRae's expertise in the area to guide the taking of this work forward. We are pleased that the Commission is willing to consider new areas of law, particularly in the trade and economic area, which have the potential to be of real benefit to States and the international community as a whole. While MFN clauses in treaties will vary, the Commission may be able to highlight common considerations for the interpretation of such treaties.
We note the establishment of the Study Group on “Treaties over time” under the direction of Mr Georg Nolte, and look forward to receiving further guidance from the Group as to the shape and practical purpose of this study, and the potential end use of its work.New Zealand welcomes the fifth report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr Chusei Yamada, and congratulates him for his successful work which has seen the adoption by the Commission of a set of 19 draft articles plus preamble and commentaries on the law of transboundary aquifers.
This is not a topic of immediate relevance to New Zealand given our relative geographic isolation. The only boundaries that metropolitan New Zealand shares with its neighbours are in respect of our extended continental shelf, where it projects beyond the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone. We recognise, however, that this is a very significant topic for others, and is likely to become increasingly important as the world’s population continues to grow and, with it, demands for access to fresh water.
There are a number of highly technical aspects to this subject which must be taken into account when formulating draft articles. For this reason, we congratulate the Commission for enlisting the assistance of scientists, administrators and experts in water law and management. Thus working method is a useful exemplar of how the Commission might tackle other technically complex issues in its future work, including the topic of protection of persons in the event of disasters.
We consider the draft articles represent a good balance of the competing interests at stake in the use and preservation of this vital but increasingly scarce natural resource. We agree with the two step approach recommended by the Commission: first, for the Assembly to take note of the draft articles and for States to make appropriate bilateral and regional arrangements for the proper management of aquifers based on the principles in the draft articles; and, secondly, the consideration at a later stage, of the elaboration of a draft convention on the basis of the draft articles.
Given the specific and unique features of individual aquifers, our view remains that transboundary aquifers are best managed at the regional or local level and we are yet to be persuaded that it is useful to try to settle on firm rules that will apply to all shared aquifers. We do not rule out such an exercise at a later date but we agree that it is too soon to take that decision now.
New Zealand commends the work of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Ian Brownlie, and of the Working Group under Mr Lucius Caflisch on this challenging subject. We are very pleased that as a result of their combined efforts the Commission was able to conclude its first reading of the draft articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties. We would also like to congratulate Mr. Caflisch on his appointment as the new Special Rapporteur on this topic.
We consider that the revised draft that emerged from the Working Group is heading in the right direction. We welcome the fact that it reflects comments made during last year’s debate by New Zealand and other countries. We are pleased, for example, to see that internal armed conflict is included in the definition, and also that the intention of the parties test in draft Article 4 has been removed.
We look forward to further progress of the draft articles and commentaries by the re-established Working Group, under the guidance of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Lucius Caflisch.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
