United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee: Plenary debate on International Law Commission Report – Cluster I
Statement delivered by Mr. Harry Aitken, Counsellor and Legal Adviser, Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations in New York.
27 October 2026
Thank you, Chair.
Australia wishes to commend the Commission’s invaluable contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law, and to express our gratitude for the Commission’s latest report.
Australia’s statement will address three topics: the legal aspects of sea level rise, immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and general principles of law.
Legal aspects of sea level rise
Turning firstly to the legal aspects of sea level rise.
Chair, rising seas are no longer a warning for the future. They are a lived reality for millions of people around the world.
Sea level rise is a challenge no nation can meet alone.
We share the ocean and we share responsibility for its future.
This year the international community has come together at the United Nations to shoulder this responsibility.
With the adoption of the landmark Declaration on Sea Level Rise, Member States reached a consensus on the legal positions that will underpin our global response to sea level rise.
Australia, with Cabo Verde, was proud to co-facilitate the UN’s new Declaration.
It is an outcome that was only possible because of the leadership of States, regions and institutions in recent years.
The leadership of the Pacific, the region that has led the way in bringing the world’s attention to this issue.
The leadership of the ILC’s Study Group on Sea Level Rise, whose innovative ideas on pathways forward this Declaration responds to.
And the leadership of the International Court of Justice, whose unanimous advisory opinion on climate change reinforced the importance of legal stability and certainty in relation to maritime zones established in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS.
Chair, Australia wishes to make three points regarding international law as it applies to sea level rise.
First, we welcome the Declaration’s support for the stability of maritime zones in the face of sea level rise.
Our position is that maintaining maritime zones established in accordance with UNCLOS, and the rights and entitlements that flow from them, notwithstanding climate change-related sea level rise, is supported by both UNCLOS and the legal principles underpinning it.
UNCLOS imposes no affirmative obligation to keep baselines and outer limits of maritime zones under review, nor to update charts or lists of geographical coordinates once deposited with the Secretary-General of the UN.
We are pleased to see widespread support among States for the 2021 Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on preserving maritime zones, as well as State practice consistent with the positions outlined therein.
Second, the Declaration on Sea Level Rise reinforces that international law supports a presumption of continuity of statehood in the face of sea level rise.
This is a welcome elevation of a position long taken by the Pacific Islands Forum, and a position which was recognised for the first time in a legally binding treaty between Tuvalu and Australia in 2024.
That the Declaration underscores the continuity of UN membership means the UN remains a place where all countries represented in this room have a voice.
Finally, the Declaration recognises that sea level rise has the capacity to drive displacement, with implications for the dignity, future choices, and enjoyment of rights of those affected.
As demonstrated by the Pacific’s approach, we must answer this challenge consistent with international law.
We encourage States and other relevant actors to take cooperative approaches, which centre human rights, in ensuring the protection of persons and providing pathways for mobility with dignity.
The Declaration on Sea Level Rise is the international community’s new framework for meeting sea level rise head on. But our next steps must be to put this into action.
The UN’s Sixth Committee must play its part in ensuring legal stability, certainty and predictability as we confront this threat.
Chapter 4 – immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction
Chair, I now move to the topic of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction.
Australia welcomes the Commission’s conclusion of work on this topic and the opportunity to exchange views on the Commission’s proposal for a new convention.
Australia is a strong proponent of accountability for serious international crimes. It is in the interests of all States to ensure these crimes are prevented and perpetrators are prosecuted.
As set out in Australia’s submission to the Commission in 2023, and our previous statements, we maintain that the legal position expressed in draft article 6 [formerly 7] represents progressive development of international law.
This said, we acknowledge there is a trend of the non-applicability of functional immunity for serious international crimes at the national level.
Australia maintains any exception to immunity should be limited to serious international crimes as a category, rather than developing in respect of particular crimes.
We maintain that procedural safeguards are an important protection for State officials from unsubstantiated and politically-motivated prosecutions, and Australia would have liked to have seen additional safeguards reflected in the draft articles.
Australia submitted to the Commission, and we maintain that, in cases of competing jurisdiction, the State of nationality or the State in which criminal conduct occurred shall be responsible for investigating and prosecuting serious international crimes, provided it does so in a genuine and independent manner.
Australia also considers that procedural safeguards should have brought a clearer distinction between their application to functional immunity and personal immunity.
Moving forward, Australia will continue to engage in good faith in any discussions on the draft articles.
Chapter 5 – general principles
Chair, I move finally to the topic of general principles of international law.
Australia welcomes the conclusion of the Commission’s work and conveys its appreciation to the Commission.
The Commission’s work on this topic complements its existing work on other sources of law under Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the ICJ.
Australia welcomes the further clarification in the commentaries on the circumstances in which national principles common to various legal systems are ‘compatible’ with the international legal system.
Conclusion
To conclude, Australia would like to reiterate our support for the Commission’s work on these and many other topics, noting that Australia’s position on these other topics is set out in our previous Sixth Committee statements.
Australia acknowledges the Commission’s continuing contribution to international cooperation, to the strengthening of national legal capabilities, and to the pursuit of a world where differences are resolved not by power and size, but through agreed rules and norms.
Thank you.