Mr. Chairman,

Speaking for the first time in the Sixth Committee this year may I congratulate you and other members of the Bureau on your election. Your stewardship at different fora of international legal events has already been recognized by many delegations as an important asset in the work of this Committee and the Hungarian delegation is looking forward to cooperate with you in bringing our common endeavours to a successful end during this Session.

Mr. Chairman,

I wish firsts pay tribute to Professor Rao, Chairman of the International Law Commission for the excellent and enlightening presentation of the Report of the ILC to our Committee. This report is up to its traditionally high standards of quality.

I would like now to turn to the different items of the Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-seventh session.

1. Draft Code of Crime against the Peace and Security of Mankind

Speaking on Chapter II of the Report, i.e. on the "Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind", the Hungarian delegation wishes to express, above all, its deep gratitude to the Special Rapporteur, M. Doudou Thiam, for his thirteenth report on this item. We are all aware of the tremendous complexities of this subject-matter. Suffice it to say that the Draft Code of Crimes has been on the agenda of the International Law Commission for more than forty years.

With this backdrop in mind it is, indeed, a positive aspect of the Special Rapporteurs report, that it contains bold changes in the draft. My delegation is in agreement with the Rapporteur that the scope of the draft articles contained in Part Two should be reduced, namely, out of the twelve articles the following six should be kept for further discussion:

- Aggression
- Genocide
- Systematic or mass violations of human rights
- Exceptionally serious war crimes
- Illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, and
- Willful and severe damage to the environment.

We also agree with the decision of the Commission to consider, as a matter of priority, the first four of the six articles during its next session. We also note with satisfaction that, during the continuation of the second reading, the Drafting Committee should bear in mind and deal with the relevant elements of those draft articles which had been previously adopted on first reading but which have not been retained in the first list, i.e. intervention, colonial domination and other forms of alien domination, apartheid, the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries and international terrorism.

We know that even the first four of these six articles which are going to be dealt with on a priority basis, need further discussion, improvement and refinement. In this context, we would like to support the Special Rapporteurs intention to return to the term "crimes against humanity" instead of the "systematic or mass violations of human rights", and to return to the category and definition of "war crimes" instead of the "exceptionally serious war crimes". (According to our experience, the less adjectives we would "enrich" with legal texts, the better.)

As to the first change we think that it better corresponds to the original concept of the Code as well as to the wording used in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and, in some national penal codes, such as the Hungarian Penal Code.

As to the second change, the Hungarian delegation welcomes it because it closely follows the relevant provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, as adopted by the Security Council and which is already being applied in practice by the Tribunal at the Hague.

Speaking on the Draft Code, my delegation wishes to make a final remark on the draft article concerning "Willful and severe damage to the environment". As we understand it, there are two schools of thought which argue for or against the inclusion of this draft article in the set of draft articles. We see no major difficulties in accepting the views according to which this crime could be punishable under other articles such as those on aggression and war crimes, and/or under the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environment Modification Techniques.

In view of the importance, however, that Hungary attaches to questions of environment, my delegation welcomes the decision of the Commission to establish a working group that will examine - at its next session - the possibility of covering, in the Draft Code, the issue of willful and severe damage to the environment.

2. State succession and its impact to the nationality of natural and legal persons

This item is a very new, but let me say immediately, a highly welcomed topic on the agenda of the Commission. There is no doubt that its inclusion was mainly prompted by the important changes related to State succession in Central and Eastern Europe in the first part of the 1990s. I would like to express the satisfaction and deep appreciation of my delegation to the Special Rapporteur of this topic, my learned friend, dr. Václav Mikulka, for his concise and very enlightening report on this subject (see: A/CN.4/467). We are also grateful to the members of the Working Group which was established by the Commission to deal with this topic. This Working Group has also prepared its report which we were able to study as an Annex to the ILC Report.

It goes without saying that Hungary, due to its geo-political situation, has a special interest in this subject-matter. It is enough to recall that in five of the our seven neighbours, the impact of State succession has created, inevitably, problems which we also have to face in our bilateral relations.

We would like to endorse the flexible approach of the Special Rapporteur, which was also adopted by the Working Group, that the principles and rules to be formulated relate both to the codification and the progressive development of international law.

The Hungarian delegation also shares the Special Rapporteurs view that "a study of the effects of State succession on the nationality of natural persons was more urgent and should take priority over the separate problem of the nationality of legal persons". (Paragraph 156).

We would also like to support those principles formulated by the Working Group, which reflect, in our view, the customary rules of international law. To name but a few:

- The predecessor State should have the obligation not to withdraw the nationality of the person concerned, except in certain well-defined cases, provided that such withdrawal does not result in statelessness
- The obligation of the successor State to grant its nationality to a well- defined category of persons
- The obligation of the predecessor and the successor State to grant a right of option.

3. State Responsibility (Chapter IV of the Report)

In the introduction to this Chapter there is a reference to a general plan adopted by the Commission in 1975 related to the structure of the draft articles. It is worthwhile, however, to recall that the consideration of this topic had already started in the late 1950-ies. These almost four decades of professional discussion, intellectual efforts and perseverance constitute telling evidence of the high complexity and contradictory nature of this topic. Small wonder, therefore, that the process of codification of this subject-matter has been, indeed, very slow and more time is needed to come to a successful conclusion. In view of this very difficult task the Hungarian delegation highly appreciates the progress made by the Commission this year. This progress has been manifested, as we know, in the adoption of two articles on countermeasures as well as in the adoption of several articles on dispute settlement.

a) Countermeasures

As far as draft Article 13 is concerned on Proportionality, my delegation is in full agreement with the Commission as to the wording of this article. We agree with the commentary that "The relevance of proportionality in the regime of countermeasures is widely recognized in both doctrine and jurisprudence." (See paragraph 365). A countermeasure, therefore, "shall not be out of proportion to the degree of gravity of the internationally wrongful act ...".

As regards Article 14 on "Prohibited countermeasures", we share the view of the Commission that although most of the prohibited countermeasures, as contained in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), are also covered by sub-paragraph (e), i.e. that an injured State shall not resort to "any other conduct in contravention of a peremptory norm of general international law", it is better to spell out those important rules. Suffice to it mention the overall prohibition of

- the use of force,
- extreme economic or political coercion, "designed to endanger the territorial integrity or political independence of the State" concerned,
- the inviolability of diplomatic or consular agents, and, last but not least,
- any conduct which derogates from basic human rights (pp. 149-150).

(b) Dispute settlement

May I recall that during the 48th Session of the General Assembly, my delegation, speaking about Part IV of the ILC Report on State responsibility, took the view that "the future convention ... should contain provisions on the settlement of disputes ...". We furthermore agreed with the approach to formulate a procedure which would contain "compulsory elements to ensure that ... disputes be brought to a final and binding decision." We are therefore pleased that Part III of the draft Articles represents an important move ahead in this very difficult and important field.

The Hungarian delegation agrees with the approach of the Special Rapporteur, according to which his proposal "was meant to establish a new dispute settlement obligation for State parties in relation to disputes that arose after (emphasis added) the taking of countermeasures". At the same time we should be aware of the expected reluctance with which this system of a compulsory nature will be treated by a great number of States. This is true mainly of draft Article 7, which provides for unilateral action by any party to bring the case to the International Court of Justice, which would be competent to rule on the validity of an arbitral award. It could also be added that the procedure proposed for the establishment of the Conciliation Commission has been based on existing precedents, mainly on the Annex to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as well as to Annex V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As for the provisions of the Arbitral Tribunal they are also based on rules, contained in the Law of the Sea Convention, and in other important instruments, such as the Model Rules of Arbitral Procedure and the 1949 Revised General Act for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes.

4. International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law

You will certainly recall that the Hungarian delegation has, on many previous occasions, taken the firm stand of supporting the work of the Commission on this topic. We are of course aware of the difficulties which arise due to the fact that this topic could indeed be found "at the outer edge of the progressive development" of international law. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that this subject-matter is a crucial one in identifying and reaffirming the emerging provisions of international environmental law. We recognize that sometimes one might find uneasy to make a clear distinction between what is usually called "soft" or "hard" law in this field. In our opinion, late tendencies show that what is generally considered "soft" today, should be increasingly respected and will most likely become "hard" tomorrow. That is why, among other reasons, my delegation welcomes the progress the Commission achieved by provisionally adopting four articles on general principles, with commentaries thereto, at its last session.

We therefore fully endorse the position of the Commission which is reflected in Article A, according to which "the freedom of States to carry out or permit activities in their territory... is not unlimited. It is subject to general obligation to prevent or minimize the risk of causing significant transboundary harm ...". The formulation of this principle fully corresponds to the progressive development of international law during the last two decades, from the Stockholm Declaration to the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

The Hungarian delegation lends its support to the wording of Articles B and C, on Prevention and Liability and Reparation, respectively. We also attach special importance to Article D on Cooperation, according to which "States concerned shall cooperate in good faith ... in preventing or minimizing the risk of significant transboundary harm ...". My delegation can state here in unequivocal terms that Hungary has always been, and continues to be ready to conduct negotiations and cooperate in good faith with any of its neighbours on issues related to the prevention or minimizing of the risk of any transboundary harm. We should also add that Hungary is, as before, always ready, if necessary and feasible, to seek the assistance or mediation of any international organization in this field.

Having said this, my delegation is naturally aware of the wide range of views on the subject-matter as reflected both in doctrine and in State practice. We are and remain open to any pragmatic solution which may be put forward in the future, ranging from a change in the title of the topic (from "acts" to "activities") to the drawing up a declaration rather that a treaty. The most important question however is, in our view, to continue the work on this difficult but challenging subject-matter.

5. The law and practice relating to reservations to treaties

I would also make a few comments on this new topic. First of all, my delegation would like to congratulate the Special Rapporteur, M. Alain Pellet, for his first report on this subject-matter, which he prepared and submitted in a very short space of time. We agree with his approach to this topic and with his view that "the question of reservations to treaties is probably one of the most difficult in the whole of public international law." My delegation also shares his, perhaps somewhat optimistic, but hopefully realistic, assessment that "... with the completion of political decolonialization and the end of the cold war, the question of reservations could now be tackled in a more serene manner."(p. 241.)

The Hungarian delegation is also in agreement with the conclusions as contained in paragraph 491 of the Report of the Commission (p. 260), which the Special Rapporteur drew from the discussion in the Commission. We are looking forward to receiving his questionnaire which is to be sent to Governments and international organizations, for ascertaining their views and practices as regards reservations to treaties.

BACK