15 See UN Docs. A/54/751-S/2000/106 & Adds. 1, 2 (2000) (recording nominations of Buergenthal by 17 national groups). No other names were submitted by any national group.

16 The recorded vote in the General Assembly was 117 in favor, 7 abstentions, and 0 against. See UN Press Release GA/9700 (Mar. 2, 2000). The electors in the General Assembly are all 188 UN member states together with the one non-member state (Switzerland) that is a party to the Statute of the Court. Id.; see also ICJ Statute Art. 4(3). Procedures for the conduct of the parallel ballots are set forth in UN Doc. A/54/750-S/2000/105, at 3–5 (2000).

17 See Verbatim Record at Opening of Hearing in Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pak. v. India), obtainable from<http://www.icj-cij.org (Apr. 3, 2000).

1 For a general description of the Sixth Committee and its role in the progressive development and codification of international law, see Morris, Virginia & M.-Christiane, Bourloyannis, The Work of the Sixth Committee at the Forty-seventh Session of the UN General Assembly, 87 AJIL 306, 306 nn.1, 2 (1993)Google Scholar.

2 As discussed below, there was a vote on one of the draft resolutions concerning international terrorism and on a paragraph of the draft resolution on the ILC topic. For an extensive summary of the debate and the action taken by the committee with respect to the various items, see UN Docs. A/C.6/54/SR. 1–37 (1999–2000). For the draft resolutions recommended by the Sixth Committee after the debate, all of which were adopted by the General Assembly without change, see the Sixth Committee’s reports to the General Assembly on the various items, UN Docs. A/54/607–16 (1999) (also containing information on relevant documentation, including summary records, for each item); see also GA Res. 54/27–28 (Nov. 17, 1999), GA Res. 54/101–12, GA Dec. 54/429 (Dec. 9, 1999), obtainable from <http://www.un.org/law/cod/sixth/54/sixth54.htm. For further information and documentation on the committee’s work at the 54th session, see id.

3 Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-first Session, UN GAOR, 54th Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/54/10 (1999) [hereinafter ILC Report]. For a more detailed analytical summary of the Sixth Committee’s debate on the ILC report, see Topical Summary of the Discussion Held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly During Its Fifty-fourth Session Prepared by the Secretariat, UN Docs. A/CN.4/504 & Add. 1 (2000). For more information and documentation, see the Web site of the International Law Commission <http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm.

4 During the ensuing debate, the Commission and the former special rapporteur, Václav Mikulka, were congratulated on the draft articles and the commentaries thereto. ILC Report, supra note 3, at 15. The draft articles reflect the Commission’s concern with the protection of the human rights of persons whose nationality may be affected following a succession of states. Part I contains general provisions, including the reiteration of the basic right to a nationality and its commensurate duty to prevent statelessness; a presumption of nationality on the basis of habitual residence; and the recognition of a limited right of individuals to opt for a nationality if they would be rendered stateless as a result of a succession, subject to their enjoying an appropriate connection with the state in question. Part II applies to specific categories of succession of states, viz., transfer of part of the territory, unification, dissolution, and separation of a part or parts of the territory.

5 See UN Doc. A/C.6/54/SR.19 (1999).

6 The 1996 draft articles recognized the following circumstances as grounds for precluding wrongfulness: consent, countermeasures in respect of an internationally wrongful act, force majeure and fortuitous event, distress, state of necessity, and self-defense. See Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-eighth Session, UN GAOR, 51st Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 135–37, UN Doc. A/51/10 (1996).

7 France maintained that material injury was an essential component of the definition of an injured state. See UN Doc. A/C.6/54/SR.21 (1999).

8 The Commission has adopted 20 draft guidelines constituting the first chapter, which is divided into six sections: Definition of reservations; Definition of interpretative declarations; Distinction between reservations and interpretative declarations; Unilateral statements other than reservations and interpretative declarations; Unilateral statements in respect of bilateral treaties; and Scope of definitions. See ILC Report, supra note 3, at 204.

9 The Commission agreed to the following concept of a unilateral act for purposes of its work on the topic and the circulation of a questionnaire to states: “A unilateral statement by a State by which such State intends to produce legal effects in its relations to one or more States or international organizations and which is notified or otherwise made known to the State or organization concerned.” Id., para. 17.

10 See UN Doc. A/C.6/54/SR.19 (1999).

11 In his last statement to the Sixth Committee as the legal adviser of the United Kingdom, Sir Franklin Berman pointed with appreciation to the significant improvements in the working methods of the Commission since the 1970s. He commented further on the way the Sixth Committee has considered the Commission’s work and proposed that in the future, arrangements be made to allow members of the Commission to meet with the legal advisers of member states. See UN Doc. A/C.6/54/SR.24 (2000).

12 Operative paragraph 10 of the draft resolution, which proposed the holding of a split session of the Commission in 2000 (May 1-June 9, and July 10-Aug. 18, 2000), was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 in favor, 1 against (the United States), and 4 abstentions. The entire draft resolution was subsequently adopted without a vote.

13 The chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, Philippe Kirsch, who had skillfully guided the elaboration of three major legal instruments on international terrorism, announced his resignation, effective after the conclusion of the meeting of the working group of the Sixth Committee dealing with terrorism.

14 UN Doc. A/C.6/53/L.4, Annex I (1998).

15 Article 4.

16 See Morris, Virginia & M.-Christiane, Bourloyannis-Vrailas, The Work of the Sixth Committee at the Fifty-third Session of the UN General Assembly, 93 AJIL 722, 728–29 (1999)Google Scholar. Given the lack of progress, the Australian delegate was appointed coordinator of the draft nuclear-terrorism convention and tasked with seeking resolution of the stalemate on the scope of the convention.

17 The draft convention was elaborated in unprecedented time (four weeks of meetings over a nine-month period from initial consideration to finalization) partly because most of the ground had already been covered during the elaboration of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings in 1997. GA Res. 52/164, annex, UN GAOR, 52d Sess., Supp. No. 49, Vol. 1, at 389, UN Doc. A/52/49 (1998). Hence, most of the general provisions were based on that text, which left only a handful of issues specific to financing to be negotiated. No less significant was the way that the sponsors had laid the groundwork. After the initial floating of a proposed text to all delegations at the General Assembly’s 53d session, an intersessional meeting was held with key delegations in London. Thus, when the Ad Hoc Committee received the text in February 1999, it had already been widely, albeit informally, scrutinized and substantially revised to fit the terrorist-bombings “model.”

18 A vote on the treaty in the committee was narrowly averted through a last-minute amendment to the first pre-ambular paragraph of the draft resolution to which the text was annexed, inserting a reference to General Assembly Resolution 46/51 of December 9, 1991, which includes a reference to the right of peoples to struggle against colonial or other domination. GA Res. 46/51, UN GAOR, 46th Sess., Supp. No. 49, Vol. 1, at 283, UN Doc. A/46/49 (1991).

19 The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism was adopted by the General Assembly on December 9, 1999, GA Res. 54/109, supra note 2, annex [hereinafter Financing Convention]. Ten signatures were registered in the first week after its opening for signature on January 10, 2000. As of early June 2000, 18 states had signed the treaty (22 ratifications are required for entry into force).

20 Notwithstanding different views on the extent to which the participatory-liability provisions of existing treaties already covered such individuals, delegations generally agreed on the need for additional regulation of such activities, in the form of a treaty, in the face of widespread and large-scale financing of terrorism.

21 Financing Convention, supra note 19, Art. 2(1) (a).

22 Id., Article 2(1) (b) defines this residual offense as follows:

23 Id., Art. 5.

24 Id., Art. 8.

25 Id., Art. 18. This article incorporates a slightly modified version of some of the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force on Money-Laundering, established by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The recommendations were formulated in 1990, and revised in 1996. OECD, The Forty Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force on Money-Laundering (1996).

26 Financing Convention, supra note 19, Art. 13.

27 The draft resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 116–0-3 (Lebanon, die Syrian Arab Republic, and Benin).

28 UN Doc. A/C.6/51/6, annex (1996). A revised text of the draft International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism has since been circulated informally.

29 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9*, reprinted in 37 ILM 999 (1998). The statute has since undergone a series of rounds of corrections. A corrected text was issued following the second session of the Preparatory Commission, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/INF/3* (1999). Since then, a further set of corrections has been processed by the Secretariat and will be issued in 2000.

30 Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at Its First Session (16–26 February 1999), UN Docs. PCNICC/1999/L.3/Rev.1 & Corr.1 (1999); Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at Its Second Session (26 July-13 August 1999), UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1 (1999); Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at Its First, Second and Third Sessions (16–26 February, 26 July-13 August and 29 November-17 December 1999), UN Docs. PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1 & Adds.1, 2 (1999).

31 Resolution F Adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/10*, Annex I (1998).

32 Id., para. 6. The Preparatory Commission established two working groups, which completed the first reading of the respective instruments. See UN Docs. PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1/Add.1 (1999); id., /Add.2. At the behest of several states, including Syria, it was decided to establish a third working group to elaborate the provision on the crime of aggression provided for in Article 5 of the Rome Statute. The working group held its first three meetings at the third session of the Preparatory Commission. A compilation that the Secretariat had prepared of proposals concerning the definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions for the court to exercise jurisdiction over this crime served as the basis for the debate. By the end of the session, a new working document was elaborated containing all the various proposals on the table, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1, Annex IV (1999). Views differed over the preferability of a general definition (as in the Nuremberg Charter, Aug. 8, 1945, 82UNTS279) or a list of acts (as in GA Res. 3314 (XXIX), UN GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 31, Vol. 1, at 142, UN Doc. A/9631 (1975)). Similarly, delegations took different positions on the conditions for the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over this crime and its interface with the Security Council’s role with respect to aggression under the UN Charter. Further information and documentation concerning the work of the Preparatory Commission are available at the Web site of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court <http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html.

33 By early June 2000, the Rome Statute had already garnered 97 signatures and 12 ratifications. Sixty ratifications are required for its entry into force (Art. 126).

34 A further three sessions of the Preparatory Commission were scheduled for March 13–31, June 12–30, and November 27-December 8, 2000.

35 See UN Doc. A/C.6/54/SR.29 (2000).

36 See Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-third Session, UN GAOR, 46th Sess., Supp. No. 10, para. 28, UN Doc. A/46/10 (1991).

37 The ILC had also established a working group to consider the outstanding aspects of the topic. The working group’s report discusses the relevant provision of the ILC draft and the evolution of the issue, summarizes recent case law, and makes suggestions with respect to five issues: the concept of a state for purposes of immunity; the criteria for determining the commercial character of a contract or transaction; the concept of a state enterprise or other entity in relation to commercial transactions; employment contracts; and measures of constraint against state property. This working group was also chaired by Mr. Hafner, a member of the ILC. The working group’s suggestions were adopted by the ILC with some amendments. See ILC Report, supra note 3, para. 484, Annex I.

38 GA Res. 49/61, UN GAOR, 49th Sess., Supp. No. 49, Vol. 1, at 305, UN Doc. A/49/49 (1994).

39 See the report of the chairman of the working group for a more detailed summary of the group’s views on the various issues, including drafting proposals, and the chairman’s suggestions regarding their further consideration. UN Doc. A/C.6/54/L.12 (1999).

40 Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the Work of Its Thirty-second Session, UN GAOR, 54th Sess., Supp. No. 17, UN Doc. A/54/17 (1999).

41 This convention is intended to increase the availability in developing countries of affordable credit based on international receivables.

42 Chairman Renger also drew attention to the ongoing collection and dissemination of relevant materials for the CLOUT (Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts) series as a means of promoting the uniform interpretation and application of UNCITRAL texts. Further information on the work of UNCITRAL and its secretariat is available at <http://www.uncitral.org/.

43 Noting that negotiations on the three major texts were nearing fruition, the United Kingdom described the recent session as something of a watershed. UN Doc. A/C.6/54/SR.3 (2000). The United States underscored the importance of the draft convention on accounts-receivable financing as not only modernizing commercial financial law, but also making affordable credit available for commercial enterprises in developing countries; cautioned that the legislative guide on privately financed infrastructure projects should be more specific and result oriented and not simply balance existing legal systems, some of which were inconsistent with modern capital markets; and described any work on legal guidance for electronic-signature and message-authentication systems as premature since the effective types of commercial applications in trade and commerce were still unknown. See UN Doc. A/C.6/54/SR.4 (2000).

44 UN GAOR, 54th Sess., Supp. No. 33, UN Doc. A/54/33 (1999). The Sixth Committee also considered under this item the progress report of the Secretary-General on the updating of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, UN Doc. A/54/363 (1999).

45 The consideration of this proposal coincided with the NATO action in the former Yugoslavia.

46 The proposal regarding the extension of the competence of the International Court of Justice to contentious proceedings between states and international organizations was withdrawn by the sponsor delegation.

47 See Morris & Bourloyannis-Vrailas, supra note 16, at 724.

48 Note by the President of the Security Council: Work of the Sanctions Committees, UN Doc. S/1999/92.

49 The Sixth Committee had before it the Report of the Secretary-General on Implementation of Provisions of the Charter Related to Assistance to Third States Affected by the Application of Sanctions, UN Doc. A/54/383 (1999), containing, inter alia, the views of some governments on the report of the ad hoc expert group on assistance to third states affected by the application of sanctions. The report was subsequently referred to the Economic and Social Council for consideration at its substantive session in 2000.

50 The resolution left open the possibility of considering the issue further within the context of a working group of the Sixth Committee at the General Assembly’s 55th session.

51 It also took note of the Secretary-General’s continued efforts to reduce the backlog in the publication of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.

52 The Sixth Committee had before it the final report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Decade of International Law, UN Docs. A/54/362 & Add.1 (1999), and a report on the outcome of celebrations on the centennial of the first Hague Peace Conference, which coincided with the end of the decade, UN Docs. A/54/381 & Add.1 (1999). The committee adopted two draft resolutions on this item, calling attention to the useful thematic discussions held at the centennial celebrations, and reaffirming the continuing validity of the decade’s main objectives. The decade was formally concluded at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly held on November 17, 1999. See UN Docs. A/54/PV.54–55 (1999).

53 General support was expressed for the activities of this UN program, as described in the Secretary-General’s report, including the various seminars, fellowships, internships, publications, and audiovisual library. The Sixth Committee adopted a draft resolution providing for continuing these activities. See Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of International Law, UN Doc. A/54/515 (1999).

54 See Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, UN GAOR, 54th Sess., Supp. No. 26, UN Doc. A/54/26 (1999). During the debate, some delegations characterized the host-country travel restrictions on diplomatic personnel of certain missions and UN staff members of certain nationalities as discriminatory and contrary to international law. In response, the United States expressed the view that the Headquarters Agreement required unimpeded access to the headquarters district but not unlimited travel outside this area except for official business. For statements of Malaysia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Russian Federation, and the United States, see UN Doc. A/C.6/54/SR.35 (2000). The Sixth Committee adopted a draft resolution requesting the host country to continue to take all necessary measures to prevent any interference with the functioning of missions, to consider removing travel controls, and to take steps to resolve diplomatic parking problems.