Delivered by: Ms. Khadija Al Shehhi, Third Secretary

Thank you, Madam Chair,

On “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law”, the UAE would like to begin by expressing its thanks to the Special Rapporteur, Dr. Charles Jalloh, for his efforts in furthering the consideration of this matter. The UAE welcomes the progress made in relation to this topic, and has taken note of the Commission’s adoption, on first reading, of the thirteen draft conclusions and their commentaries.

The UAE considers this topic to be of great relevance to the integrity of international law. The topic goes to the heart of how international legal rules are identified and the Commission’s work can provide valuable guidance to States, courts, and practitioners.

The UAE reiterates, as it has done on previous occasions, that it is clear that subsidiary means are subordinate to the sources of international law. They are a tool to assist with the identification of rules of international law, as is set out in draft conclusion 3, and do not constitute sources in and of themselves. In our view, this understanding should inform the whole text, including the determination of what falls within the scope of subsidiary means.

As regards the first of the subsidiary means, the decisions of courts and tribunals, the UAE agrees that there is no rule of binding precedent in international law, whilst acknowledging that past decisions on similar points of law may be followed where appropriate, particularly those of the International Court of Justice. The UAE finds that the approach to decisions other than those by international courts and tribunals, including decisions of municipal courts, “hybrid” courts, and quasi-judicial bodies, requires more nuance and clarity. We urge the Commission to address this carefully in the draft conclusions and the commentary on second reading. 

In relation to teachings, the UAE welcomes the distinction made in the draft conclusions between teachings and the work of expert bodies. We are further encouraged by the attempts to make teachings more inclusive of the plurality of views that may exist in international legal scholarship.

The UAE notes with interest the debates within the Commission on expanding the scope of subsidiary means to those beyond Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute. We are following these discussions closely, particularly as they relate to resolutions and other texts produced by international organizations or at intergovernmental conferences. We would welcome further reflection on the diverging views within the Commission on this issue. We also invite the Commission to clarify the scope of the term “other texts” as used in draft conclusions 12 and 13.

Finally, the UAE recalls that this topic intersects with many other topics considered by the Commission, such as customary international law, general principles of law, peremptory norms of international law, and subsequent agreements and subsequent practice. We are encouraged by the Commission’s awareness of the importance of ensuring consistency across its various outputs and invite the Commission to devote particular attention to this during second reading.

The UAE looks forward to engaging with this topic further in due course.

Madam Chair,

On “Succession of States in respect of State responsibility”, we take note of the Commission’s decision not to pursue further consideration of the topic, and the report of the Working Group setting out the reasons for that decision. In light of the Commission’s assessment that the relevant State practice is limited, varied and highly context-specific, we consider the Commission’s approach to be a careful and responsible one. The decision reflects the Commission’s commitment to rigour and to producing outputs of genuine utility to States, and we hope that this considered approach will continue to inform its future work.

Thank you, Madam Chair.