Joint Nordic statement delivered by Ms. Kaija Suvanto,
Director General of Legal Services, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
General Assembly, Eightieth Session 
Agenda item 80: Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 76th session – Cluster II 
31 October 2025

Mme./Mr. Chair,

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the five Nordic countries: Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and my own country Finland.

I will first turn to Chapter V of the ILC report, concerning immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction.

On behalf of the Nordic countries, let me start by expressing heartfelt condolences for the recent passing away of Ms. Concepción Escobar Hernández, who had been Special Rapporteur for this topic from 2012 to 2022. Her valuable contributions for international law in general and this topic in particular will remain.

Madam/Mr. Chair, the Nordic countries wish to express their deep appreciation for the work of the Commission on this important topic, which is both legally complex and politically sensitive. We commend the hard and dedicated work of the current Special Rapporteur, Mr. Claudio Grossman Guiloff, as well as the valuable contributions made by the previous Special Rapporteurs, Ms. Escobar Hernándes and Mr. Roman A. Kolodkin.

In contrast to the situation of diplomatic agents and States as such, there is no legal instrument to set out a general immunity regime relative to State officials. The work of the ILC on this topic represents a significant step towards a common understanding of the international legal norms applicable to this matter, as also stated in the written comments to the draft articles submitted to the Secretary-General by the Nordic countries in December 2023.

The topic has been on the agenda since 2007. In 2022, an entire set of draft articles was adopted on first reading. The Nordic countries continue to hold the view that the ILC has succeeded in drafting what is a broadly acceptable text reflecting the applicable customary rules. We also still believe that the draft is both satisfactorily structured and adequately detailed.

As pointed out with regard to the set of draft articles adopted by the Commission on first reading, it successfully strikes a balance between the interests of the forum State and the State of the official. In this regard, the procedural provisions suggested in part four of the draft articles are particularly important, ensuring adequate safeguards for the State of the official, while also observing the interests of the forum State.

The general approach favoured by the Nordic countries is therefore to rely on the outcome of the first reading, with necessary updating based on new developments or other compelling reasons.

Moving forward, the Nordic countries emphasize that Part Four of the draft articles not only aims to ensure fair trial safeguards for foreign State officials in the context of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, but also contributes to optimal communication between States, respecting their sovereign equality. Such safeguards serve to prevent the abuse or politicization of criminal jurisdiction and maintain peaceful relationships among States. We would therefore not be in favour of transforming part four into non-binding guidelines or conclusions, as including procedural safeguards could prevent future abuses.

In addition, the Nordic countries would like to take this opportunity to reiterate their consistent support for draft article 7. We also support the suggested additions to draft article 7 of the crime of aggression, slavery, and the slave trade, as provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee. All these crimes have an established status as crimes under international law.

These proposed additions must be read in conjunction with the procedural safeguards that will entail increased predictability for States. As also mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, the proposed Part Four will also be crucial to avoid politicization of draft article 7. Moreover, the Nordic countries have consistently underlined the importance of harmonizing the draft articles with legal developments that have occurred over the last decades. These remind us that the commission of the most serious international crimes cannot be considered today to constitute acts performed in an official capacity giving rise to immunity and thereby providing a shield against accountability. Furthermore, the Nordic countries have taken due note of the explanations of the Special Rapporteur as to the purpose of the draft articles. It is to serve as the basis for a treaty. It is in that context that States should have ample opportunity to express their views on the content of the possible future treaty. States will be well served in having before them a text as here suggested.

We also recall our commitment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the other treaties enumerated in the annex to the draft articles, underlining the importance of harmonizing the draft articles with legal developments reflected in said treaties.

The point of departure of the Nordic countries is that progressive development and codification of international legal rules should respect immunities considered under this topic, without this becoming a shield for impunity for the most serious international crimes. We are also of the view that respect for the sovereign equality of States should not hinder non coercive collection of important information and evidence. Moreover, certain conduct clearly does not qualify as an official act triggering immunity ratione materiae.

Immunity of State officials may give rise to challenging questions for prosecutorial and other domestic authorities, including judiciaries, that will be the final arbiters of difficult cases.

This is why we firmly believe that the outcome will be of real practical assistance to States.
Next, regarding the topic on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, I would like to thank the International Law Commission and Special Rapporteur Mr. Charles C. Jalloh, for the work done thus far on the topic. The Nordic countries welcome the Commission’s attention to this important topic and support the approach of working towards a set of draft conclusions. We would like to make the following general comments:

First of all, we recall our support for the important contributions made by the Commission in promoting conceptual clarity and consistency in the application of the term “source of law” in the ‘context of the Commission’s engagement with Article 38 of the ICJ Statute thus far. While there is no single operative definition of the term “source of law” in international legal practice or theory, it is clear that subsidiary means referred to in Article 38 (1) d are of a different nature than “sources of law” insofar as this term is applied as a reference to formal sources of law.

As the Nordic countries have previously noted, Article 38 (1) d refers to something qualitatively different from the latter, namely a material source; i.e. helpful, material evidence that may assist in and influence interpretation and provide added perspective. We remain satisfied that these concerns are reflected in the draft conclusion on the nature and function of subsidiary means, which stipulates in clear language that subsidiary means are not a source of international law and that their function is to assist in the determination of the existence and content of rules of international law.

The Nordic countries welcome the focus on the work of private and public expert bodies, and the possible consideration of resolutions of international organizations and of intergovernmental conferences as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. The Nordic countries agree that resolutions of international organizations and intergovernmental conferences may indeed carry analytical weight in the interpretation of legal norms. Further, we agree that they may serve as evidence of State practice or opinio juris and of general principles of law formed within the international legal system and as such, they might provide evidence for determining the existence and content of rules of international law, even if they cannot themselves create such rules.

The Nordic countries note with regret the Commission’s impossibility of completing its first reading due to time constraints. We reiterate our appreciation to the Commission for engaging with the topic of subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. We will continue to collaborate with the Commission on the topic with great interest.

Next, turning to the topic of settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties. We express our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. August Reinisch, for his third report and for his continued dedication to this important topic. The Nordic countries welcome the focus in this session on disputes between international organizations and private parties. We note the observation made in the Working Group that such disputes represent a significant part of the dispute settlement practice of international organizations, and consider this a valuable development in the Commission’s work.

We continue to support the view that a set of guidelines is a suitable outcome for this topic. We encourage the Commission to work towards practical solutions that may offer a useful toolbox for dealing with disputes to which international organizations are parties.
During this session, the Special Rapporteur proposed five new draft guidelines addressing the scope of the relevant part of the guidelines, resort to means of dispute settlement, jurisdictional immunity of international organizations, access to justice, and procedural rule of law, as well as human rights requirements. As the Commission was not able to consider the third report in plenary, we appreciate the establishment of a Working Group to allow for a preliminary exchange of views.

As regards the scope of the work, the Nordic countries reiterate the position expressed in previous years, welcoming the broadening of the scope from “Settlement of international disputes to which organizations are parties” to “Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties”.

We take note of the view expressed by several members of the Working Group that distinguishing disputes based on the parties involved, rather than the subject matter or applicable law, may be a useful approach at the current stage of the Commission’s work.

We welcome the attention given to the notion of good faith and cooperation in the settlement of disputes. We take note of the views expressed in the Working Group regarding the need for the guidelines to reflect the diversity of dispute contexts and to support fair and equitable approaches.

On the issue of jurisdictional immunity of international organizations and the right of access to justice, we support the further development of the relevant draft guidelines. We recognize the sensitivity of achieving the right balance between immunity and access to justice, and we believe that further clarification of this relationship may be warranted as the work progresses.

We welcome the attention given to procedural rule of law and applicable human rights in the context of disputes involving private parties. We note in particular the relevance of labour standards and other protections, as highlighted in the Working Group.

We take note of the discussions on practical tools, including model clauses and examples of alternative dispute settlement mechanisms. While we acknowledge the potential value of providing practical guidance, we also recognize the need for careful consideration, given the diversity of relevant practices.

Furthermore, Nordic countries note the view that it would be most useful for states and international organizations to identify examples of effective and reasonable alternatives to judicial and arbitral dispute settlement. We believe that it could be beneficial for both individuals and international organizations to resort to alternative dispute resolutions such as mediation, conciliation, or perhaps the use of ombudsmen or complaint boards.

In closing, allow me to reiterate our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur and the Commission for the progress made on this topic. We look forward to the continued work and to the possible conclusion of the first reading at the seventy-seventh session.

On the topic of non-legally binding international agreements, the Nordic countries would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Forteau, for his excellent work so far, and in particular for his second report, which serves to effectively guide the work forward.

The Nordic countries note that the increasing use of non-legally binding international agreements across a wide range of subjects underscores the importance of the Commission’s work in clarifying and collecting existing practice.

As regards the six draft conclusions proposed by the Special Rapporteur in his second report, the Nordic countries would like to present the following comments.

Firstly, concerning the purpose of the draft conclusions, the Nordic countries would like to commend the approach taken in draft conclusion 1, from which it is clear that the draft conclusions are not meant to be prescriptive. We also welcome that it is mentioned in the draft conclusions that they are not intended to affect the flexibility that characterizes their negotiation and adoption. We agree that the purpose of the conclusions should be to provide greater legal certainty and elements of clarification.

Secondly, regarding draft conclusion 2 on use of terms, the Nordic countries recall that the use of the term “agreement” has sparked discussion in the Sixth Committee. The Nordic countries are pleased that the Special Rapporteur has taken into account the diverse views expressed by States. The Nordic countries remain flexible on this point and agree with the Special Rapporteur that the terminological choice should not become a sticking point. We could also support the use of the term “instrument,” should that be the preferred choice at a later stage, provided it is clarified that it refers to mutual commitments and not unilateral statements.

Thirdly, the Nordic countries support the scope of the topic proposed in draft conclusion 3 and welcome the inclusion of non-legally binding international agreements entered into by sub-State authorities in it. However, the Nordic countries would encourage clarifying more precisely what the term “sub-State authorities” refers to, and if it is intended to refer to ministries as well. In the view of the Nordic countries, this could be clarified for example in the commentary.

Fourthly, the Nordic countries welcome the “without prejudice” clause in draft conclusion 4. States have a wide variety of national guidelines and practices, and it is important that the different practices are respected.

Fifthly, the Nordic countries believe that draft conclusions 5 and 6 provide a solid basis toward more detailed work on identifying indicators that could be used to distinguish between treaties and non-legally binding international agreements. The Nordic countries welcome the emphasis placed on the intention of the parties as a key criterion and agree that the assessment on the nature of the instrument should be made on a case-by-case basis, with relevant elements considered holistically.

The Nordic countries note that the second report of the Special Rapporteur lays valuable groundwork for identifying relevant indicators, which may include the terms used in the agreement, its form, the circumstances of its conclusion, the absence of final clauses typical to treaties, its registration or non-registration with the UN Secretariat, and subsequent practice. We consider that these indicators should always be assessed as a whole. We further note that a list of relevant indicators should not be overly prescriptive.

Regarding draft conclusion 6, the Nordic countries agree that the fact that all the parties to an agreement expressly indicate that it is or it is not legally binding under international law is sufficient to identify their intention. We note that it should also be clarified, for example in the commentary, that the absence of such an express indication does not determine the nature of the agreement.

Lastly, the Nordic countries look forward with interest to the Special Rapporteur’s third report. We consider that there are several compelling questions regarding the potential legal effects of non-legally binding international agreements. These include for example the role of good faith, the role of non-legally binding agreements in interpreting other international rules, their interpretative value when concluded in connection with the conclusion of a treaty, and their possible “pre-law function”. It would also be useful to further study whether the potential legal effects vary depending on the authority concluding the agreement, for example if the agreement is concluded by a ministry or another sub-State authority instead of the state.

In closing, the Nordic countries would like to reiterate our appreciation for the work already done by Mr. Forteau and the ILC on this topic. The Nordic countries look forward to continuing to contribute to the discussions in the Sixth Committee and engaging further with the ILC on this important topic.

Turning to prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea, let me begin with expressing our deep appreciation for the efforts of the International Law Commission to tackle this legally complex and practically important matter.

We would like to express our great appreciation to Special Rapporteur, Mr. Louis Savadogo for his note on the topic in which he identified points of law which could constitute the major themes of the work of the Commission on the topic, outlined general areas of inquiry based on the main features of the topic and provided methodological guidance.

The Nordic countries, as other countries, are highly dependent on a secure global maritime domain for growth and development for all of us. We all have an interest in protecting freedom of navigation and supporting maritime security. At present, maritime security challenges exist all around the globe, with piracy and armed robbery at sea being a key challenge. To that end we are concerned about the continued high number of incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea as well as hijackings, particularly in Malacca Strait and off the coast of Somalia.

Against this backdrop we commend the Special Rapporteur for his focus on themes that are most important in practice and those that relate to the law of the sea.

More specifically with regards to defining the dialectical terms “prevention” and “repression” we agree with the Special Rapporteur that attention should be paid to their meaning to ensure the proper use of the terms in the text of the draft articles.

We would like to shortly comment on the two terms. We agree with the fact that prevention in many instances is more effective than repression, which is why for example we support different preventive efforts in the Gulf of Guinea and the Horn of Africa. It is important that any reference by the Commission to a legal framework for preventing piracy and armed robbery at sea is firmly grounded in international law, assuming that the draft articles intend to reflect the law as it currently stands.

With regard to the repression of piracy and armed robbery, the Nordic countries fully agree that it is essential that States take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other appropriate measures to achieve this goal.

In this regard, we would like to stress that prevention and repression must go hand in hand. Effective and sustainable maritime security requires not only proactive measures to prevent acts of piracy and armed robbery but also robust enforcement mechanisms to repress such acts when they occur.

Furthermore, we commend the proposed schedule of work presented in the note which sets out a timeline for submitting the draft articles to the Commission for its consideration, and finally for adoption.

Finally, let me emphasize that the Nordic countries condemn all acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea and support the Commission and the Special Rapporteur in their work.

The Nordic countries attach great importance to secure and open maritime routes. Without secure oceans, the global trade which relies heavily on sea transport will be significantly obstructed to the detriment of all.

This is not only essential for safeguarding global trade and ensuring the stability of international supply chains, but also vital for the safety and well-being of seafarers who operate in these challenging environments.

We look forward to continuing the cooperation with both the Commission and the Special Rapporteur.

Finally, I will turn to the topic of Succession of States in respect of State responsibility, on which the Nordic countries would like to make the following remarks:

At its meeting on 26 July 2024 the International Law Commission having considered the recommendations of the Working Group on Succession of States in respect of State responsibility, decided to establish a Working Group for the purpose of bringing the Commission’s work on the topic to an end.

It is regrettable to hear of the discontinuation of the Working Group’s efforts at the upcoming 77th session of the Commission. As we have stated previously, State succession is a rare occurrence, and the lack of State practice - which was cited as one of the challenges for codification - is precisely why the working group’s efforts on the topic are valuable.

Nevertheless, we take note of the decision to conclude the Working Group’s operations.

Mme./Mr. Chair, on behalf of the Nordic countries, I thank you