Delivered by Ms. Eman Al Menhali 

New York, 14 October 2025 

Mr. President, 

The UAE renews its appreciation for the work of the International Law Commission on the Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. Those Draft Articles, together with the various proposals and comments from Governments to date, constitute a starting point in our next phase of engagement. The UAE affirms its readiness to participate in the work of the Preparatory Committee, which will play a critical role ahead of the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity. 

In the work ahead, the UAE stresses the importance to reach a broad consensus. Indeed, in the UAE’s view, the elaboration of any convention preventing and addressing the commission of international crimes must  be a ground for common action, not for confrontation. The objective should be to assure our collective commitment and ability to prevent and punish the commission of such grave crimes.  

In order to reach this objective, it is also imperative that the content of the relevant obligations be laid out with sufficient clarity and precision. States need to be able to immediately understand when, and how, to act. This would support uniformity in the implementation of these obligations and avoid unnecessary differences and disputes between States on their interpretation.  

Let me make some concrete examples where further engagement may be required in this regard.   

First, with respect to the definition of crimes against humanity, the UAE does not question the basic features of Draft Article 2. Our domestic law on international crimes provides for a similar definition. However, there remain significant differences among Member States on certain elements of the definition, including with regard to the groups susceptible to persecution as a crime against humanity.   

Second, the contours of the obligations to prevent and not to commit crimes against humanity in draft Article 3 should be clearly articulated. In this regard, the UAE notes that, in appreciating the scope of these obligations, States cannot solely rely on the practice of the ICJ in relation to the Genocide Convention, which is inherently fact-specific. There too agreement and clarity are important to ensure predictability and legal certainty. 

 Third, a convention on crimes against humanity needs to provide guidance on how to distinguish crimes against humanity from other crimes.In this regard, the jurisprudence of international criminal courts, as cited in the commentary to the Draft Articles, may offer limited assistance, as their scope has generally been confined to clear-cut situations of extreme severity. Relevant institutional frameworks of these courts also include specific gravity thresholds.  

As a result, these courts have rarely, if ever, dealt with situations requiring a clear distinction between crimes against humanity and ordinary crimes, such as those committed by criminal cartels or organizations. Instead, a convention which would not incorporate such a threshold of utmost gravity is likely to raise challenges of interpretation. Against this background, we should consider whether the convention should address either some form of gravity threshold or, at least, indicators to assist in the identification of the point at which otherwise criminal behavior crosses a threshold of seriousness so as to trigger State responsibility to prevent crimes against humanity. These elements would also safeguard the gravity reserved for such crimes, and protect them from dilution.   

In conclusion, Mr. President, 

We look forward to collaborating with States with a view of finding the broadest consensus possible on substantive matters, and, to that end, we hope to see a wide participation of States.   

Thank you, Mr. President.