Joint Nordic Statement: Report of the International Law Commission

Joint Nordic Statement by Ms. Kaija Suvanto, Director General for Legal Affairs,
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland,
81st session of the United Nations General Assembly
Agenda item 78: Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-sixth and seventy-seventh sessions
Cluster II
29 October 2026

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 start with the topic Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law.

First, we would like to thank the Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles C. Jalloh, for the work done and the adoption of the entire set of draft conclusions with commentaries on first reading. We have noted the request for comments and observations before December 1, 2027, and we will provide such comments in written form. At present, we will limit our comments to a few general points, building on the statements the Nordic countries have earlier made on this topic.

We support the approach of working towards a set of draft conclusions. 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. It is in our view clear that subsidiary means referred to in Article 38 (1) d of the Statute are of a different nature than “sources of international law” insofar as this term is applied as a reference to formal sources of law. We are pleased that the draft conclusion on the nature and function of subsidiary means 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.

We take note of the list of criteria for assessing subsidiary means contained in draft conclusion 4, and we will reflect further on the extent to which such criteria can provide a helpful tool for the assessment of subsidiary means. We also appreciate, in draft conclusion 8, the modernizing of the definition of teachings, found in article 38, to a more inclusive and representative concept, such as in terms of gender and linguistic diversity.

Before turning to the next topic in this Cluster, we wish to reiterate our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Charles C. Jalloh, and the Commission for their work on this topic and for the adoption of the draft conclusions on first reading. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Commission as the topic advances towards second reading.

Mme./Mr. Chair,

Let me now turn 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 work and continued dedication to this important topic. We welcome the adoption by the Commission of the draft guidelines together with commentaries on first reading and take note of the decision of the Commission to invite comments and observations of Governments and relevant international organizations.

The Nordic countries believe that the guidelines could constitute a valuable reference for international organizations in promoting access to justice while respecting legitimate interests in maintaining jurisdictional immunity. Given their non-binding nature, the draft guidelines should be formulated in recommendatory rather than mandatory terms. Accordingly, the use of “shall” in draft guidelines 10, 11 and 12 should be reconsidered, with a view to replacing it with “should”. We welcome the Annex to the third report of the Special Rapporteur providing sample dispute settlement clauses used in the practice of international organizations. This information could assist the efforts of international organizations towards identifying practical solutions to disputes. While we acknowledge the potential value of providing practical guidance, we also recognize the need for careful consideration, given the diversity of organizations, relevant practices and dispute contexts.

The Nordic countries welcome the focus on disputes between international organizations and private parties. We note the observation made in the Working Group, reflected in the commentaries, that such disputes represent a significant part of the dispute settlement practice of international organizations. We consider the Commission’s attention to this question a valuable development in its work.

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 welcome the attention given to the notion of good faith and cooperation in the settlement of disputes. We recognize the sensitivity of achieving the right balance between jurisdictional immunity and access to justice, and we believe that the draft guidelines provide a useful basis for further clarification of this relationship. We welcome in this regard the attention given to procedural rule of law and applicable human rights in the context of disputes involving private parties in draft Guidelines 11 and 12. We note in particular the relevance of labour standards and other protections, as highlighted in the Working Group.

Furthermore, the 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.

To conclude on this topic, allow me to reiterate our appreciation to the Special Rapporteur and the Commission for the progress made on this topic, leading to the adoption of the draft guidelines. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Commission on this important topic.

Mme./Mr. Chair,

Let me finally address the topic of Succession of States in respect of State Responsibility. We wish to express our sincere appreciation for the nearly decade-long efforts of the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Pavel Šturma, in examining the complex question of succession of States in respect of State responsibility.

Through five reports, the Special Rapporteur examined the implications of State succession for obligations, rights and claims arising from State responsibility, including questions relating to different forms of responsibility, reparation and succession, plurality of successor States, continuing and composite wrongful acts, and the role of agreements and negotiated settlements.

We also wish to thank the Working Groups and their Chairs, Mr. August Reinisch and Mr. Bimal N. Patel, for their careful assessment of the work undertaken on this topic and for guiding the Commission's consideration towards its final conclusions. We further appreciate the Working Group’s final report, which provides a clear and thoughtful account of the Commission's work and explains the legal and methodological challenges encountered in the course of the topic’s consideration.

As the final report demonstrates, international law in the area of succession of States in respect of State responsibility remains unsettled. The Commission's work highlighted persistent challenges concerning the available State practice, the identification of general rules, and the extent to which particular solutions depend on negotiated agreements and the circumstances of individual cases of State responsibility and succession.

Nevertheless, we commend the Commission, the Special Rapporteur, the Working Groups and their Chairs for their careful and comprehensive examination of the topic. The work undertaken has identified and examined the principal legal questions arising in this field, while also demonstrating the limits of the existing State practice and the difficulties of further codification.

Sometimes, recognizing that the law does not yet permit a clear general conclusion is itself the most appropriate conclusion. We therefore appreciate the Commission's candor and thoroughness in bringing its consideration of this topic to a close.

Thank you, Mme./Mr. Chair.