Delivered by Ms. Laura Coquard, Director – International Law Department
Madam Chair,
The United Arab Emirates thanks the International Law Commission for its work on the topics in this cluster during its 77th session. We will address Chapters IX, X, XI, and XII of the Commission’s annual report in our statement today.
Turning first to “Non-legally binding international agreements”, the UAE reiterates its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Forteau, and the Commission, as well as its agreement with the general orientation of their work. Non-prescriptive elements of clarification are helpful to enhance legal certainty around these agreements. Such clarification may be provided equally through positively or negatively framed conclusions, or through without prejudice clauses, as appropriate. The UAE encourages the Commission to remain open to each of these framings.
With this in mind, the UAE will address four specific aspects of the Commission’s work on this topic.
First,the UAE considers that additional clarification may be necessary concerning agreements adopted by sub‑state, local, or sectoral entities. The current framing of draft conclusion 3, paragraph 2, does not sufficiently account for what is and what is not authorized under internal laws of States. We also note the diversity of practice that has been raised during discussions in the Sixth Committee, and invite the Commission to reflect on this further.
Second, the UAE wishes to address the assessment of the nature of an agreement. The UAE believes the identification of indicators to determine whether an agreement is binding or non-binding can be useful. However, given the diversity of State practice, building an open-ended list of indicators may lead to endless discussions. Instead, identifying categories of indicators could prove more efficient. In our view, the categories used by the International Court of Justice in its 2025 Judgment in the Gabon/Equatorial Guinea case could serve as a starting point for the Commission, but further examination should be undertaken.
In this context, the UAE notes the commentary to draft conclusion 3 and encourages the Commission to further consider the practice of participants knowingly including binding provisions in an agreement they explicitly identify, overall, as non-legally binding. States may, for example, find practically preferable to include a singular binding provision on the confidentiality of information exchanged under a non-binding agreement setting out a cooperative framework – rather than concluding a separate binding agreement on confidentiality.
Third, the UAE has a specific concern with respect to draft conclusion 5 as provisionally adopted. Express indications of intention provide legal certainty to the participants to an agreement. As currently drafted, however, draft conclusion 5 undermines legal certainty, as it opens the possibility of recharacterizing agreements the participants have expressly identified as non-binding. The UAE would instead support the Special Rapporteur’s proposal, made during his summation of the plenary debate, that the text of draft conclusion 5 is left unqualified. If any notable exceptions can be identified from practice and jurisprudence, they can be reflected in the commentary.
Fourth, the UAE welcomes the Special Rapporteur’s caution as to the potential legal implications of non-legally binding agreements. We agree that, by definition, these agreements do not produce binding legal effects, whether direct or indirect. The UAE would support a draft conclusion dispelling any ambiguity in this regard. The Commission should also make clear that provisions of non-binding agreements cannot be transformed into binding obligations through the application of principles such as good faith or estoppel. Finally, the UAE invites the Commission to pay particular attention to the importance of the intention of the participants to an agreement as regards its possible legal implications.
Madam Chair,
Turning next to “Due diligence in international law”, the UAE welcomes the attention of the Commission to this topic, given its contemporary significance. We also thank the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Penelope Ridings, for her insightful first report. We will make a few preliminary observations.
First, the UAE echoes views expressed in the Commission on the importance of presenting State practice in support of future work on this topic. As surveyed by the Special Rapporteur, the jurisprudence concerning the scope and content of due diligence appears to be composed primarily of decisions in the context of specific treaties or legal regimes. Their transposition to other areas of international law, or reliance on them to posit an autonomous obligation under international law, requires careful consideration.
Second, it is also abundantly clear that disagreements around the nature and scope of due diligence will stall meaningful progress on this topic if not overcome in the early stages. The UAE supports a focus on due diligence as a standard of conduct attaching to specific primary obligations, as this is best supported by State practice, jurisprudence, and doctrine. For similar reasons, we invite the Commission to limit its work on this topic to the obligations of States.
Third, as regards the possible existence of an autonomous obligation of due diligence under customary international law, we align with views within the Commission that caution against conflating obligations of conduct across international legal rules, each of which may require the exercise of due diligence, into a global and stand-alone due diligence obligation. An autonomous obligation, if it exists, must be identified through sufficient convergence of State practice and opinio juris. The UAE also notes the reservations that have been expressed in the Commission regarding reliance on the Corfu Channel judgment, and invites the Special Rapporteur to address this.
Our final comment pertains to the cross-cutting relevance of due diligence across different areas of international law, as identified by the Special Rapporteur. Several of these areas, such as cyberspace and climate change law, are undergoing active development. This warrants vigilance from the Commission to ensure that it does not prejudge outcomes in other forums.
Madam Chair,
On the topic “Compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts”, we will similarly limit ourselves to some initial remarks, and look forward to providing more substantive comments as the Commission’s work advances.
The UAE thanks Mr. Mārtiņš Paparinskis for his first report, and agrees with the Commission that this project should focus on compensation for internationally wrongful acts. We welcome the indication in the first report that liability rules do not fall within the scope of this topic. Other aspects of the law of State responsibility should be addressed only insofar as they bear directly on the topic. We further consider that questions such as the relationship between compensation and circumstances precluding wrongfulness, or compensation for wrongful acts of international organizations, raise unsettled issues and, given the limited practice, are better addressed separately, if at all.
The UAE considers that the purpose of this project should be to clarify, as far as possible, existing rules of international law and to provide more useful guidance than is currently available, without overgeneralizing the rules and practices followed in specialised contexts. We urge the Commission to exercise restraint where post-2001 practice is not sufficiently broad or representative so as to enable the identification of a more detailed set of rules that can apply uniformly across different fields of international law.
The UAE welcomes the extensive review of jurisprudence in the first report. As the Commission itself recognizes in its work on subsidiary means, the weight of a judicial decision depends on factors such as the quality of reasoning and its reception by States, and not the volume of decisions. We call on the Commission to exercise care in drawing from jurisprudence, especially in investor-State arbitration which, although substantial, is decentralised and depends on the content of the applicable treaty.
In conclusion, the UAE believes that a focused scope of work, grounded in established practice, is most likely to produce an outcome that is both useful to States and achievable within a realistic timeframe.
Madam Chair,
On the topic of “Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea”, the UAE thanks the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Louis Savadogo, for his comprehensive report. This area of international law is an increasingly relevant field of common concern, particularly in view of emerging technologies. We encourage the Commission to approach this topic in a manner that takes into account the multitude of existing rules in this field and balances them with the imperative of keeping pace with international developments.
Thank you, Madam Chair.