缅北禁地

Sixth Committee (Legal) — 70th session

Measures to eliminate international terrorism (Agenda item 108)

??

Documentation

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 so far adopted three counter-terrorism instruments.

At its sixty-ninth session, the General Assembly decided, 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 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 54/110 concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations (resolution ).

Consideration at the seventieth session

The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 27th and 29th meetings, on 12, 13 and 14 October and on 13 and 20 November 2015 (see , , , , , and ). For its consideration of the item, the Committee had before it the report of the Secretary-General on measures to eliminate international terrorism ().

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution of 10 December 2014, at its 1st meeting, on 12 October, the Committee established 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 General Assembly resolution concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations. 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. The Committee elected Ambassador Rohan Perera (Sri Lanka) as the Chair of the Working Group. The Working Group held five meetings, as well as informal consultations, on 26 and 30 October, and on 9, 11 and 13 November. At its 27th meeting, on 13 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 (A/C.6/70/SR.27).

During the general debate, statements were made by the representatives of: the Islamic Republic of Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)), the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)), Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), Ecuador (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)), South Africa (on behalf of the African Group), the European Union, also on behalf of its member States (the candidate countries Turkey, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania, the country of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Armenia and Georgia aligned themselves with the statement), Armenia (on behalf of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)), New Zealand (also on behalf of Australia and Canada (CANZ)), the Sudan, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC)), Cuba, Qatar, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Libya, Senegal, Burundi, Serbia, Israel, Eritrea, Indonesia, Nigeria, the United Republic of Tanzania, the Russian Federation, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Turkey, Iraq, Norway, Kyrgyzstan, Zambia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Uganda, Kenya, Morocco, Egypt, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Malaysia, Tunisia, C?te d’Ivoire, Mongolia, Liechtenstein, Myanmar, the United Arab Emirates, Cambodia, Thailand, Colombia, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Gabon, the Syrian Arab Republic, Ethiopia, the United States of America, China, Georgia, the Niger, Kuwait, Maldives, Bahrain, Pakistan, Mali, the Islamic Republic of Iran, India, Japan, Montenegro, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Ukraine, Viet Nam, Djibouti, the Republic of Korea, Algeria, Benin and Chad. The Observer for the Holy See made a statement. The representatives of Israel, Turkey and the Syrian Arab Republic made statements in the exercise of the right of reply. The Observer for the State of Palestine made a statement in the exercise of the right of reply.

In their general statements, delegations generally reaffirmed their unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Terrorism was characterized as a flagrant breach of international law. It was also underlined that, regardless of the considerations or factors invoked by their perpetrators, terrorist acts were unjustifiable. A suggestion was made that 2016 be declared as an international year against terrorism. In the fight against terrorism, several delegations highlighted the need for strict observance of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, as well as due process and respect for the rule of law in countering terrorism. The need to respect the right to privacy while fighting terrorism was also underlined. The human suffering caused by terrorism was highlighted by several delegations, and many referred to recent and local examples of terrorist acts, expressing sympathy for the victims. It was also emphasised that terrorism is often linked to the destruction or looting of cultural property. More generally, the economic consequences of terrorism in terms of development and economic stability were underlined, as well as other potential consequences, such as mass migration.

As to the forms and manifestations of terrorism, a number of delegations expressed the view that terrorism may be committed by individuals, as well as by States, including by the use of military force. Several delegations further stressed that terrorism should not be equated with the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation. It was also underlined by several delegations that terrorism should not be associated with any religion, culture, ethnicity, race, nationality or civilization. In this respect, the need to address questions relating to incitement, hate speech and unjust defamation of certain religions was stressed. Some delegations expressed their firm opposition at the unilateral establishment of lists of countries purportedly involved in terrorism, a practice which was viewed by them as unacceptable and contrary to international law. In this regard, the risk of politicizing the discourse on terrorism and its use as a pretext against certain countries was referred to.

In addition, several delegations expressed concern at the phenomenon of “foreign terrorist fighters” (FTF) and the use of social media and the Internet by terrorist organizations to recruit new adherents and spread propaganda. In this regard, delegations generally expressed their support to the framework arising from Security Council resolution . In particular, the importance of addressing “life cycle” issues concerning the FTF phenomenon was underlined.

As to the causes of terrorism, a number of delegations highlighted the need to consider the underlying economic and political conditions from which it arises. It was emphasised that international and internal conflict, foreign occupation, State failure, as well as the lack of development, are important root causes of terrorism. The view was expressed that military interventions against sovereign countries were also among the root causes of terrorism. The need to take a holistic, whole-of-society approach was often mentioned; it was observed, in particular, that development is in itself a weapon against terrorism. Furthermore, the view was advanced that a lack of integration in society is one of the driving factors of terrorism, so that societal unity must be fostered. Some delegations underlined the importance of education to tolerance and mutual understanding.

In addition, some delegations mentioned the nexus between transnational organized crime and terrorism, while other delegations expressed the view that the issues should be understood and addressed separately. Moreover, a number of delegations underlined that the paying of ransom money constitutes one of the key sources of income for terrorist groups, and called for international action. A suggestion was made that an international ban on the payment of ransom money to terrorist groups be adopted.

Several delegations called for all States to fulfil their obligations under international law in preventing the organization, instigation or financing of terrorism. Other delegations mentioned the importance of border management, while some delegations highlighted the need to fully implement existing obligations to extradite or prosecute. While some delegations 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. The view was expressed that more needs to be achieved internationally in terms of capacity building in developing countries. The need for help and rehabilitation for victims of terrorist acts was also underlined.

Delegations commended the United Nations for its counter-terrorism efforts, and urged its increased focus on assisting Member States in implementing counter-terrorism policies at the national and regional level. International frameworks of cooperation leading to the sharing of information and best practices were mentioned as important tools in combating international terrorism. A number of delegations reaffirmed their support for relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution , , , , , , , , and . On the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, several delegations reaffirmed its importance and indicated their commitment to implementing the Strategy as a collective and coordinated response to countering terrorism. While delegations reiterated that it was the primary responsibility of Member States to implement the Strategy, some delegations also highlighted the Strategy’s focus on a balance of national, regional and international measures conducted by organizations at these levels. Several delegations stressed the importance of an integrated and balanced implementation of the four pillars of the Strategy. They also reaffirmed that the Strategy was an ongoing and evolving document that should be updated and re-examined regularly and looked forward to the next review of the Strategy during the current session of the General Assembly in 2016. The view was expressed that the Strategy should enhance its focus in countering the unjust defamation of certain religions and communities in the context of the fight against terrorism.

A number of delegations also welcomed the work of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF), and its coordinating efforts to support Member States when assistance was sought. The need was stressed for adequate funding for activities aimed at enhancing national capacities. Several delegations also expressed their support for the continued work of the United Nations Centre for Counter-Terrorism (UNCCT) in exchanging best practices and capacity building; the synergy in the work of the UNCCT and the CTITF was also praised. The importance of the provision of financial contributions to support the work of the UNCCT was recognized. Several delegations also expressed their continuing support for the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED), and examples of cooperation with CTED were provided. Some delegations expressed their full support for the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC), especially given its important cooperation and expertise in assisting States to combat international terrorism. The CTC’s work to counter the threat of foreign terrorist fighters was particularly highlighted. The work of the UNODC in countering terrorism was also praised.

Several delegations underlined the importance of the various sanctions regimes, in particular the importance of the 1267 (1999)/1989 (2011) and 1540 (2004) Sanctions Committees. The steps taken by the Committees towards implementing more fair and clear procedures were recognized. Support for the role of the Ombudsperson was also expressed, and suggestions were made by several delegations to make the position permanent and to extend its oversight to all Security Council sanctions regimes.

Several delegations looked forward to the forthcoming Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism to be presented by the Secretary-General in 2016. The view was expressed that intensive consultations with delegations should inform the content of the Plan. It was hoped that the Plan of Action would embrace a “whole-of-United Nations” approach.

Support was also given by some delegations for the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum (GCTF), as a forum for sharing best practices and developing practical tools to further implement the United Nations counter-terrorism framework.

Delegations referred to the increase in terrorist activities and reiterated the importance of concluding, without further delay, the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. It was noted that the draft convention would enhance and fill the lacunae in the existing legal framework, provide States with more precise terminology on the definition of terrorism, as well as an effective tool in their counter-terrorism efforts, including by facilitating cooperation and mutual legal assistance. It was nevertheless observed that, despite the unanimous condemnation of this scourge, ten years had passed since the World Outcome document called for the adoption of the draft convention during the sixtieth session. States were now encouraged to embrace the momentum generated by the 70th anniversary of the Organization to reach this goal. The theme of this year’s General Debate was considered particularly relevant as a call for the international community to play a more active role in combating terrorism, particularly through strengthening the multilateral legal framework in this field. The conclusion of the draft convention would also make it unequivocally clear that the General Assembly was the principal organ for international treaty making and norm setting, including in this field.

Some delegations observed that despite best efforts and the flexibility shown by many delegations, it had not been possible to achieve progress on the draft convention. While noting the impasse in the negotiations, several delegations nevertheless expressed their willingness to cooperate constructively with a view to bridging the remaining differences and called upon all States to show flexibility and the necessary political will for this purpose. Some delegations reiterated their commitment to the negotiation process and their determination to reach consensus on the draft convention by resolving the outstanding issues, including those relating to the definition and scope of the acts to be addressed by the convention. The importance of a consensus-based conclusion of the draft convention was also emphasized.

A number of delegations reiterated their support for the proposal of the Bureau, which was first?? made by the Coordinator on the outstanding issues concerning the draft convention at the 2007 session of the Ad Hoc Committee, and considered that it constituted a viable compromise solution. Some delegations also recalled their preference for earlier proposals relating to the scope of the draft 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 by some delegations. The view was also expressed that any definition would need to include all forms and manifestations of terror, including State terrorism, while the opposing viewpoint that no reference to “State terrorism” should be included was also expressed. It was further stressed that the draft convention must be consistent with international humanitarian law.

While the efforts of the Chair of the Working Group to reinvigorate the discussions on the draft convention was welcomed, it was also noted that the divergent positions on the outstanding issues were strongly held. In this regard, support was conveyed for any efforts, including informal engagements between the most interested delegations to overcome the outstanding issues. The view was additionally stated that there should be clarity as to what delegations intended to achieve with the elaboration of the draft convention and that it was therefore essential to take stock of the existing international counter-terrorism instruments and analyse where and how contributions could be made.

Several delegations reconfirmed their support for the proposal to convene a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations. The view was expressed that the proposal should be given serious consideration, and that the conference would contribute to finalizing the issues that remained with respect to the draft comprehensive convention. While some delegations noted the potential usefulness of a conference, they expressed the view that the conference should not be a prelude to the finalization of the text of the draft convention. The view was also conveyed that finalization of the draft convention should be a prerequisite to holding the conference.

Action taken by the Sixth Committee

At the 29th meeting, on 20 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.6/70/L.15 without a vote. The representatives of India, the Russian Federation and France spoke in explanation of their positions after the adoption of the draft resolution.

By the terms of the resolution, the General Assembly would, among other things, decide to recommend that the Sixth Committee, at the seventy-first 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

This agenda item will be considered at the seventy-first session (2016).

Related links

 

Quick Links

Key Documents

Resources