UNGA81 Sixth Committee Debate on the Report of the International Law Commission (Cluster I)
Statement delivered by Ms. Kristi Land, Director-General of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia
New York, 29 October 2026
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.
Chair,
Today, I start with addressing the topic of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction.
Estonia expresses its appreciation for the Commission’s sustained and balanced work on this sensitive topic. The draft articles, together with the commentaries, constitute a good overview of customary international law, and a useful document for States and their authorities to consult with.
We fully agree with the general comments noting the important developments of international criminal law in “defining and punishing the most serious crimes under international law, defining the principle of accountability as one of its constituent elements, and consolidating the fight against impunity as a goal of the international community”.
We appreciate the clarification that the Draft Articles do not affect the rights and obligations of States in relation to the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals established and operating under specific agreements (Draft Article 1, paragraph 3). This is important to ensure that the Draft Articles do not impair the achievements of such special legal regimes. Also, this gives assurance for the establishment of future international criminal courts and tribunals.
Estonia has long emphasised that there can be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. Therefore, we continue to support the inclusion of the list of the crimes to which immunity does not apply and welcome the list formulated in Draft Article 6. We reiterate our support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression to the list.
We appreciate the explanation in the commentary that although the Draft Article 6 concerns the immunity from the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction ratione materiae, this does not mean that the “troika” can enjoy absolute immunity from criminal jurisdiction because Draft Article 6 is applicable to a former Head of State, a former Head of Government or a former Minister for Foreign Affairs for the acts performed in an official capacity during their period of office.
We recall that Estonia has recommended the list not to be exhaustive and be able to take into account any further developments of international criminal law. We take note of the commentary explaining the criteria used to elaborate the list, and confirming that the Commission does not exclude the possibility that the application of these criteria may lead to the identification of other crimes to which immunity ratione materiae would not apply.
We would like to emphasise the importance of including procedural safeguards to provide clarity for the communication between relevant States, and to ensure the protection of the rights of the persons concerned.
With regard to Draft Article 17, we recall the view that Estonia has expressed before – peaceful settlement of disputes is an obligation under the United Nations Charter. While we do not disagree with the inclusion of this provision, we do not see a pressing need for such a special clause.
Chair,
Now, let me turn to the topic of general principles of law. Estonia aligns itself with the statement made by the European Union.
We note that the Commission was able to officially adopt the entire set of the draft conclusions, together with the commentaries. At the point, we reiterate our previous comments and appreciate that the commentaries provide the clarity we looked for.We congratulate the Commission for finalising this topic.
Chair,
Turning to the topic other decisions and conclusions, Estonia welcomes the inclusion of the “Identification and legal consequences of obligations erga omnes in international law” in Commission’s programme of work.
We also would like to share some thought about the revised syllabus on extraterritorial jurisdiction. Estonia attaches particular importance to the clear and consistently applied general international rules governing relations between States. In our view, the Commission’s work could help build a shared understanding of the grounds and limits of jurisdiction, strengthen legal certainty and support cooperation between States.
Regarding the possible approaches to the work, we favour the intermediate approach under which the Commission could produce a set of general draft provisions on the principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction, combining a general framework with considerations of specific fields to be agreed upon during its substantive work (including cyberspace and cross-border access to data). This approach would support coherency, consistency and predictability while allowing the Commission to account for the differences in sectoral practice.
This approach builds also on the 2006 proposal. The outline presented at that time already combined general principles – rules on the exercise of jurisdiction and its limitations – with the provisions addressing specific fields of law. The 2006 proposal expressly recognised that certain sectoral questions, such as those relating to cybercrimes or e-commerce, might not be adequately addressed by general rules alone. The Commission should clarify which issues belong in the general provisions, which can be addressed using the commentaries, and which may require separate provisions.
We support the continuing work on extraterritorial jurisdiction and possible development of draft provisions as a result, building on the 2006 proposal while keeping the project focused and manageable.
Thank you!