Sixth Committee (Legal) — 69th session
Measures to eliminate international terrorism (Agenda item 107)
- Authority:
Documentation
- — Report of the Secretary-General
Summary of work
Background (source: )
This item was included in the agenda of the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly, in 1972, further to an initiative of the Secretary-General ( and and ). At that session, the Assembly decided to establish the Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism, consisting of 35 members (resolution ).
The General Assembly considered the item biennially at its thirty-fourth to forty-eighth sessions, and annually thereafter (resolutions , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and and decision 48/411).
At its forty-ninth session, the General Assembly approved the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (resolution ).
At its fiftieth session, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to submit an annual report on the implementation of paragraph 10 of the Declaration (resolution ).
At its fifty-first session, the General Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate an international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and, subsequently, an international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, to supplement related existing international instruments, and thereafter to address means of further developing a comprehensive legal framework of conventions dealing with international terrorism (resolution ). Through the work of the Committee, the Assembly has thus far adopted three counter-terrorism instruments.
At its , the General Assembly (GA) decided, taking into account the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee, that more time was required to achieve substantive progress on the outstanding issues, to recommend that the Sixth Committee, at the sixty-ninth session of the Assembly, establish a working group with a view to finalizing the process on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism as well as discussions on the item included in its agenda by resolution concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations (resolution ).
Consideration at the sixty-ninth session
The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 28th and 29th meetings, on 7, 8, 9? October and on 7 and 14 November 2014 (see -, and ). For its consideration of the item, the Committee had, inter alia, before it the Report of the Secretary-General on measures to eliminate international terrorism (). Pursuant to General Assembly resolution of 16 December 2013, the Committee at its 1st meeting on 7 October 2014, established a Working Group on measures to eliminate international terrorism with a view to finalizing the process on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism as well as discussions on the item included in its agenda by Assembly resolution 54/110 concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations. The Committee elected Mr. Rohan Perera (Sri Lanka) as the Chair of the Working Group. The Working Group was open to all States Members of the United Nations or members of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency (see ). The Working Group held three meetings, on 24 October, and on 4 and 5 November. It also held informal consultations on 24 October, and on 4 and 5 November. At its 28th meeting, on 7 November, the Committee heard and took note of the oral report by the Chair of the Working Group on the work of the Working Group and on the results of the informal consultations held during the current session (see )
During the general debate, statements were made by the representatives of: the Islamic Republic of Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)), Australia (also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand (CANZ)), Egypt (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)), the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)), the Russian Federation (on behalf of the Member States of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)), the European Union ( also on behalf of its Member States; the candidate countries The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro,? Serbia and Albania; the countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia aligned themselves with the statement), Costa Rica (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)), Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), Belarus, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Nicaragua, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Qatar, South Africa (on behalf of the Group of African States), the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Paraguay, Guatemala, Columbia, the Sudan, Senegal, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pakistan, Lebanon, Cambodia, Yemen, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, the United Republic of Tanzania, Liechtenstein, Ukraine, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Serbia, the Russian Federation, Ecuador, the Republic of Korea, the United States of America, Ethiopia, Viet Nam, the Philippines, Turkey, Montenegro, Morocco, Israel,? South Africa, Indonesia, Zambia, the Syrian Arab Republic, China, Cuba, Thailand, Peru, Sierra Leone, Gabon, South Sudan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Japan, Eritrea, Algeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Tunisia, Myanmar, Azerbaijan, Madagascar, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Libya, Kenya, Botswana, Jordan, Benin, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Maldives, Georgia, Uganda, Armenia and Mongolia. The representatives of Afghanistan, Israel, Ukraine, the Russian Federation and Georgia made statements in the exercise of the right of reply.
In their general statements, delegations reaffirmed their strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and expressed serious concerns about the increasing, multifaceted and rising character of terrorist acts in diverse parts of the world, singling out, in particular, developments in the Middle East. They also renewed their commitment to contribute to the international fight against terrorism.? In that regard, terrorism was described by delegations as a flagrant violation of international law and a grave threat to international peace and security.? It was also underlined that, regardless of the considerations or factors invoked by their perpetrators, terrorist acts were unjustifiable. Their destabilizing effect on societies economically, socially and politically, including the erosion of law and order, the destabilization of governance arrangements and impact on economic growth, was also emphasized. Some delegations further stressed that terrorism should not be equated with the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation, and that neither terrorism nor counter terrorism measures, including the profiling of terror suspects and intrusion on individual privacy, should be associated with any religion, culture, ethnicity, race, nationality or civilization.
Several delegations called for a multidimensional approach in combating international terrorism. In that connection, commitments to the protection of fundamental freedoms and the rule of law were identified as essential elements in the fight against terrorism. The need for strict observance of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, as well as due process in countering terrorism was underscored. The point was made that the use or threat of use of force was not a sufficient tool to suppress terrorism, with concern being expressed regarding the use of drones, as well as military assistance to armed groups. Concern was also expressed over the unilateral imposition of sanctions as a means to counter terrorism. The necessity of addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism was also identified as an important element in the comprehensive effort to counter terrorism.
Some delegations further pointed to the international community’s failure to find adequate methods to address terrorism and emphasized the need for cohesive and united approaches, as well as increased cooperation at the regional and international levels. The view was also expressed that long-term and inclusive approaches based on increased cooperation and interfaith, interreligious and intercultural dialogue and understanding were required to effectively combat terrorism. Good governance was referred to as a key element to fight terrorism. It was also stressed that double standards should be avoided when combatting terrorism in order to ensure an adequate international response.
Among measures to prevent terrorism, delegations stressed the need to take into account all elements leading to its emergence and spread, such as social exclusion, uneven access to education, lack of employment and opportunities, increased migration and religious fanaticism. As such, it was considered a complex problem calling for increased coordinated action, including with respect to emerging threats in such areas as the question of foreign terrorist fighters, as well as cyber terrorism and cybersecurity.
Delegations also called for all States to fulfil their obligations under international law in preventing the organization, instigation or financing of terrorism. While some representatives underscored the progress achieved in complying with the existing legal framework, States that had not yet done so were called upon to ratify or accede to the universal and regional instruments to counter terrorism, as well as to take the necessary measures to implement them domestically. Several States reported on action, including legislative, taken domestically to implement counter-terrorism measures.
A number of delegations welcomed the adoption of Security Council resolutions (on kidnapping for ransom), (to counter terrorist groups) and (on foreign terrorist fighters). While the fact that this resolution addressed foreign terrorist fighters for the first time was welcomed, disappointment was also expressed that it lacked a clear condemnation of unilateral acts of State terrorism. It was also considered as constituting a significant step towards the suppression of terrorism although concern was also raised in that regard as new legal concepts were introduced and the resolution was elaborated in the Security Council (SC) rather than in the General Assembly (GA). Some delegations considered that the latter had an important role to play in standard setting.
On the Fourth biennial review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, held in June 2014, delegations welcomed GA resolution adopted by consensus. Several delegations stressed the importance of promoting an integrated and balanced approach in implementing the four pillars of the Strategy, in a transparent and comprehensive manner. Deep satisfaction was also expressed with two of the pillars’ reflection in SC resolution 2178. Some delegations further acknowledged the achievements of the international community in coming together to counter terrorism, while others? stressed the need to keep the Strategy relevant and contemporary in light of new emerging threats and evolving trends. It was observed that the Strategy represented a living document that must be regularly updated in order to address new emerging threats and evolving trends of international terrorism. The proposal was reiterated to? align the? work in the Sixth Committee with the plenary consideration of the Strategy,? in such a way that such debate would alternate? between the consideration of the Strategy in plenary in one year and the Sixth Committee debate the item the following year.
A number of delegations also welcomed the work of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF) and, noting its ability to efficiently coordinate with Member States, expressed a commitment to continue working with it and supporting its efforts. While welcoming the coordinating and assistance role of the CTITF, some delegations also reaffirmed the primary responsibility of States in the implementation of the Strategy. The significant role of regional and sub-regional organizations was also highlighted. The importance of adequate funding for the CTITF to develop essential assistance and training programs aimed at enhancing capacity was also expressed.
Some delegations further expressed support for the continued work of the United Nations Centre for Counter-Terrorism (UNCCT) in fostering international cooperation to combat terrorism and in supporting the implementation of the Strategy. The synergy evolving between UNCCT and CTITF entities, as well as the considerable progress that UNCCT has made in a short period of time were noted. Efforts taken to support the work of the UNCCT through financial contributions and capacity-building were also recognized and welcomed.
Several delegations also lauded the work of the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) and the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) for their significant cooperation and expertise in assisting States combat international terrorism. It was noted that these bodies have been tasked to help identify gaps in Member States’ capacities and practices in addressing the recent emergence of foreign terrorist fighters, and delegations called for continued and coordinated efforts with them in this regard.
Some delegations also underlined the importance of the and Sanctions Committees in countering the threat of terrorists and other non-State actors gaining access to nuclear, radiological, and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery. Several delegations called upon the Security Council to further improve the implementation of its sanction regimes, whilst supporting the position of the Ombudsperson, with some calling for its institutionalization. Support for the role of the Ombudsperson in significantly improving fairness and transparency in the delisting process was also expressed.
Support was also given for the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum, as well as the proposed creation of a United Nations Special Representative on Extremism.
Delegations reiterated the importance of the early conclusion of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, particularly in light of the recent increase in terrorist activities. It was noted that the draft convention would enhance and fill the lacunae in the existing legal framework, address terrorism in a holistic manner and provide States with an effective tool in their counter-terrorism efforts, including by facilitating cooperation and mutual legal assistance. It was also pointed out that should consensus not be possible despite current events, continuous annual meetings could no longer be justified. Delegations should be ready to make some difficult decisions at the current session, either to adopt the draft convention or accept that there is no political will to do so and end the negotiations. Some delegations voiced support for the efforts of the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution of 17 December 1997 and the Coordinator on the draft convention, as well as for the compromise text proposed by the Coordinator in 2007. In this regard, the view was expressed that the time had come to act upon the Coordinator’s compromise text, which had become a proposal of the Bureau in 2013.
Some delegations stated their willingness to continue to consider the proposal as a compromise text. They also reiterated their preference for the earlier proposals relating to the scope of the convention. The need for a clear legal definition of terrorism, which distinguished terrorism from the legitimate struggle of peoples in the exercise of their right to self-determination from foreign occupation or colonial domination, was reaffirmed. The view was also expressed that the definition should include terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and that the Sixth Committee needed to send a clear message that no cause or grievance could justify terrorist acts. It was stressed that the draft convention should be consistent with international humanitarian law. Some delegations also expressed the view that the draft convention should address all forms of terrorism, including State terrorism, while others considered that State terrorism should not fall within the scope of the draft convention.
While the impasse on current proposals in the negotiations on the draft convention was noted, several delegations nevertheless reaffirmed their commitment to the negotiating process, underlining the need for progress and calling upon all States to cooperate in resolving the outstanding issues. In this regard, States were urged to show flexibility and to transcend any political differences. Some delegations also expressed their readiness to discuss which mode of negotiations would be most conducive for advancing work on the draft convention. It also was stressed that the adoption of the draft convention should be consensus-based and that the negotiations should be open and inclusive.
Several delegations reiterated their support for the proposal to convene a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations.? It was pointed out that the conference, inter alia, could assist in providing a definition of terrorism, as well as address the root causes of terrorism. While some delegations noted the potential usefulness of a conference, they expressed the view that the conference should not be a prelude to the conclusion of the draft convention. It was also emphasized that the conference should not duplicate work undertaken under the Strategy and the point was made that the conclusion of draft convention was a prerequisite to the convening of such a conference.
Action taken by the Sixth Committee
At the 29th meeting, on 14 November, the representative of Canada, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Measures to eliminate international terrorism” (). At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/69/L.17, without a vote.
By the terms of the resolution, the General Assembly would, among other things, express concern at the increase in incidents of kidnapping and hostage-taking with demands for ransom and/or political concessions by terrorist groups, and express the need to address this issue.
It would also express grave concern over the acute and growing threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters, namely, individuals who travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts or providing or receiving terrorist training, including in connection with armed conflict, emphasize the need for States to address this issue, including through the implementation of their international obligations, and underline the importance of United Nations capacity-building.
The Assembly would also emphasize the need for States to cooperate resolutely against international terrorism by taking speedy and effective measures to eliminate this scourge. In this regard, it called upon all States, in accordance with their obligations under applicable international law and the Charter of the United Nations, to deny safe haven and bring to justice or, where appropriate, extradite, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, the perpetrators of terrorist acts or any person who supports, facilitates or participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning or preparation of terrorist acts.
The General Assembly would also decide, taking into account the recommendation of the Working Group of the Sixth Committee, that more time was required to achieve substantive progress on the outstanding issues, to recommend that the Sixth Committee, at the seventieth session of the General Assembly, establish a working group with a view to finalizing the process on the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism as well as discussions on the item included in its agenda by Assembly resolution , while encouraging all Member States to redouble their efforts during the intersessional period towards resolving any outstanding issues.
Subsequent action taken by the General Assembly
- Report of the Sixth Committee: ?
- GA resolution:
This agenda item will be considered at the seventieth session (2015).
Related links
