80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee Debate on the Report of the International Law Commission
Cluster I – IV (Sea-level rise in relation to international law), VI (General principles of law) and XII (Other decisions and conclusions)
Statement delivered by Dr. René Värk, Director of the Division of International Law, MFA Estonia
29 October 2025, New York
Mister Chair,
Estonia would like to express its continuing appreciation for the work of the International Law Commission and wishes to thank all the members of the Commission for their contribution. We know that it has been a challenging year for the Commission that was not been able to use its full potential and to address all the topics as planned because its sessions were cut short due to budgetary limitations. We hope it was an anomaly and the Commission can continue its usual mode of functioning next year.
Mister Chair,
Today, I start with addressing the topic of sea-level rise in relation to international law. Estonia aligns itself with the statement made by the European Union, and adds the following comments in its national capacity.
Estonia would like to thank the Co-Chairs Patrícia Galvão Teles, Nilüfer Oral and Juan José Ruda Santolaria, and the Study Group for their valuable work that helps to clarify international law rules regarding this important topic.
We congratulate the Commission for finalising this topic. The final report provides a good overview how states understand the situation and challenges in relation to three sub-topics, namely the law of the sea, statehood and the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. Likewise, the final report identifies number of cross-cutting issues – such as stability, certainty and predictability, preservation of existing rights, and international cooperation – which are linked to three sub-topics. Moreover, the Commission’s work has encouraged states to think about the legal and practical implications of sea-level rise, and has consolidated state positions and practice.
It is notable that the International Court of Justice has already referred to the final report in its advisory opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, indicating the high quality and authoritative nature of the Commission’s work.
In previous statements, Estonia has favoured the notion of fixed baselines – there is no legal obligation to update baselines, geographical coordinates or outer limits of maritime zones once they are properly established under the law of the sea. This approach was supported by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion. The final report also reflects the understanding that no such obligation exists and we support the Commission’s conclusions preferring the notion of fixed baselines.
Estonia has maintained that there is a strong presumption of the continuity of statehood and the maintenance of international legal personality in the case of states whose land surface may be totally or partially submerged or rendered uninhabitable by rising sea levels. We need to preserve legal stability, certainty and predictability as well as security in international relations. The disappearance of one typical constituent element – territory – should not necessarily lead to the loss of statehood; a position shared also by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion.
The loss of territory presents the state with serious challenges, including how to protect the persons affected by sea-level rise. However, there are ways to mitigate the situation, for example, developing digital platforms in order to connect the nationals scattered around the world and to provided services to such nationals. Estonia’s experience as a digital society confirms that this is a measure that is not difficult to implement and may be suitable for small states affected by sea-level rise. We need to admit that the loss of territory is extraordinary and the affected state is not likely able to manage the situation alone. International cooperation is crucial because the impacts of sea-level rise often transcend national borders, requiring collective action for effective adaptation and mitigation.
The Commission has suggested, as a way ahead, that states may adopt interpretative statements in order to apply or interpret existing instruments and rules of international law while taking into account the adverse impact of sea-level rise. Or may even conclude agreements in order to expressly preserve existing baselines and maritime zones. These steps may provide additional clarity, but such courses of action require further assessment and discussions.
Mister Chair,
Now, let me turn to the topic of general principles of law.
Estonia would like to thank the Special Rapporteur Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez and the Drafting Committee for their valuable work that helps to clarify international law rules regarding this important topic.
We welcome that the draft conclusions have departed from the traditional term “civilized nations” found in the Statute of the International Court of Justice and have instead adopted the more inclusive term “community of nations”. However, we hold that the essence of general principle of law should not change despite the modernisation of terminology. Although we need to assess foremost the positions of states when determining whether a general principle of law has been identified and recognised, we cannot rule out that international organisations may also provide useful contributions. Hence, we agree with the Commission’s assessment that the term “community of nations” may capture that international organisations could also contribute to the recognition of general principles of law.
We appreciate that the Commission has decided to delete paragraph 2 of Draft Conclusion 7 which envisaged the possibility of the existence of “other general principles of law formed within the international legal system”. It was not clear what are such principles and how they are identified.
Although Estonia does not see a hierarchical relationship between general principles of law, treaties and customary international law, we are supportive of Draft Conclusion 10 that general principles of law are mainly resorted to when other rules of international law do not resolve a particular issue in whole or in part.
We note that the Commission has added Draft Conclusion 12 about general principles of law with a limited scope of application. We understand there may exist general principles of law which operate within certain legal systems for a limited number of international actors whether regional, subregional or other. This draft conclusion may also be useful to accommodate future developments in international law. However, we ask the Commission to clarify the scope of Draft Conclusion 12 in future commentaries.
Mister Chair,
Turning to the topic other decisions and conclusions, Estonia welcomes the inclusion of the “Compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts” and “Due diligence in international law” in the Commission’s programme of work, and the appointment of Mārtiņš Paparinskis and Penelope Ridings as Special Rapporteurs respectively. We wish them all the best and hope that they can soon start the work on these topics.
Thank you!