Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization - Item 83 (A/81/33, A/81/206)
🇨🇳 China, 🇮🇱 Israel, 🇵🇭 Philippines, 🇺🇦 Ukraine, 🇲🇦 Morocco, 🇳🇦 Namibia, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran, 🇧🇭 Bahrain
the right of reply. Before we proceed further, I would like to remind the committee that, in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annex 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, The number of interventions in the exercise of the right of reply for any delegation at a given meeting is limited to two per item. And the first intervention should be limited to 10 minutes, and the second intervention should be limited to five minutes. In view of the time schedule of our meetings this year, I would like to encourage any delegation exercising a right of reply to please be as brief as possible and to remain well within these time limits.
sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to the statement made by the delegation of the Philippines, China would like to exercise the right of reply. I would like to emphasize that the UN is not an appropriate forum for discussing the South China Sea. The award of the so-called South China Sea arbitration is illegal, no, and void. China neither accepts or recognizes the award or does it accept any claim to our action based on the under no circumstances shall China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea be affected by the award. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm compelled to exercise my right of reply at this time to comment on the baseless accusations once again being weaponized against my country and the blatant politicization of yet another item on our agenda. It is very disappointing, but not surprising to see how many non democratic member states, which organize themselves into groups, use their time to question the State of Israel, a vibrant free democracy, on its dedication to the UN Charter. I am sure that within these groups there are different voices. However, in keeping with this non democratic spirit of how these groups are coordinated, it makes sense that so called inconvenient opinions would not be represented properly. What more could you expect when the leader of your group is Iran or Libya? Madam Chair. In contrast to those who demonize us, Israel considers the UN Charter as a cornerstone of the multilateralism and a guidepost for international relations. Next week, Israel is holding fair and free elections with equal voting rights for all our citizens, regardless of gender, religion, or ethnicity. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and many other religions and cultures will be represented by their votes and they will be of the people, and they will of the people will be reflected in the composition of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament and Government. How many of those countries that seek to accuse us of violating the Charter can say the same? When considering accusations against us, it is also crucial to consider those who voice them and their conduct. Madam Chair, to abide by the UN Charter is to abide by basic human rights the right to protest freely, the right to freedom of speech. LGBTQI plus and women's rights and protecting the human rights of all other vulnerable groups, the right to free elections and the right to basic human dignity and freedom. When was the last time there was freedom of protest or speech in Iran? The answer is many long decades ago. Madam Chair, speaking of those who basically Madam Chair, speaking of those who baselessly accuse us of violating the UN Charter while they openly support terrorism. The Palestinian Authority should examine their relationship with the UN Charter it claims to protect. The Charter guides us to be peace-loving and encourages us to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another. The Palestinian Authority is still wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of their pay for slay program. They're rewarding the families of terrorists who have murdered thousands of innocent Israeli civilians and endangered the lives of Israelis and Palestinians alike. And continue to glorify Taoism and regularly include anti-Semitic and terrorist propaganda in their educational materials. It is not surprising that the Palestinian Authority elections have once again been cancelled, extending Mahmoud Abbas' four years' term into the 21st year. This is the same PA and the same Mahmoud Abbas that lost election to Hamas in Gaza in 2006. Let me remind you what happened in 2006. Israel left Gaza completely in 2005. We removed entire Jewish communities, all IDF bases, and even dug up our cemeteries, and we gave the keys to the people in Gaza. They decided to have elections a year later. And when they had the election, Hamas won and took over Gaza. They threw all the PA leaders off the rooftops. So we were not surprised when the PA announced earlier this month that they postponed their election again. Mahmoud Abbas will continue his four year term than began in 2005 more than 20 years ago. Many countries, including France, the UK, Australia, Canada, the EU, quickly condemn this unfortunate decision by the PA to turn their backs to on democracy. Mahmoud Abbas and the PA know this would be the last election in Ramallah. Exactly what happened in Gaza would repeat itself in the West Bank. They should ask themselves how they got to this point. How are they so afraid to lose the election to Hamas? I can tell you with absolute certainty that the answer is not because there is strong defense and dedication to the core values of the UN Charter. We all know the real answer. The PA owned schools are teaching the same radical Hamas ideology even in kindergartens. Palestinian children, whether in Gaza or in the West Bank, should not be taught that Israel has not right to exist. They should not be taught that terrorism will bring them victory. They should not walk down streets named after terrorists who murder innocent Israeli civilians or learn in schools named after Shahids. The PA must confront these radical elements and not let them grow. That is the only way to build a better future that is the way to be peace loving, and I quote from the UN Charter practice tolerant and live together in peace with one another. Madam Chair, Benjamin Franklin once wrote those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The Palestinian delegation would have better use its time to self reflect on what they have done to protect and to strengthen the treat the Charter of the United Nations and what they could and should have contributed to our debate rather than repeating the same baseless accusations. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Philippines exercises its right of reply to the statements made by the Delegation of China concerning the twenty sixteen South China Sea Arbitral Award. We have taken note of the statement made in response to our earlier intervention. The Philippines does not intend to engage in a prolonged exchange. It is necessary, however, to place several matters clearly on the record. The legal position is well established. 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award was rendered by a tribunal constituted pursuant to Annex 7 of the UN Clause. Under Article 296 of the UN Clause and Article 11 of Annex 7, the award is final and shall be complied with by the parties to the dispute. The fact that one party does not accept the award does not alter its legal character or the obligations arising from it. Nor can unilateral assertions or subsequent domestic measures modify the maritime entitlements established under the UN Clause. The Philippines likewise rejects any suggestions that its lawful exercise of sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction constitutes provocation. The relevant question is whether the conduct of states is consistent with their obligations under international law. In this regard, the Philippines remains concerned by actions at sea that interfere with the exercise of its rights and jurisdiction in its maritime zones and that create risks to Philippine vessels and personnel. These concerns are not resolved by competing assertions of sovereignty or by the characterization of Philippine activities under another state's domestic law. The Philippines' position remains unchanged. Maritime claims and entitlements in the South China Sea must be determined in accordance with the UN clause. And disputes must be addressed through peaceful means consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. The Philippines remains committed to dialogue and diplomacy. Such engagement must proceed on the basis of international law and with full respect for the rights and obligations of all states concerned. Thank you, Madam Chair.
ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ukraine takes the floor in exercise of its right of reply to the statement made by the representative of the Russian Federation. The Russian delegation has once again chosen to offer this committee its own reading of the decisions of the ICJ. Out of respect for the court and for this committee, Ukraine considers it's necessary to provide the necessary clarifications. With regard to the case concerning allegations of genocide, we recall that it was Ukraine that brought this case before the ICJ to refute Russia's false pretext for its aggression. In its order of 16 March 2022, the court stated that it was not in possession of evidence supporting Russia's allegation that genocide had been committed on Ukrainian territory. It ordered Russia to immediately suspend its military operations. More than four and a half years later, Russia has not complied with that Biden order for a single day. A finding of admissibility does not constitute a determination on the merits. In its decision of 5 December 2025, the court made clear that the admissibility of the Russian Federation contra claims depends on their connection to the principal claim, namely Ukraine's claims concerning the absence of genocide. The case has proceeded to the merit stage, and the court has not made any findings supporting the Russian Federation's allegations. To date, the Russian Federation has failed to produce any credible evidence in support of each allegation of genocide. As for the Russian Federation's claim that the court found no violations on its part, the Russian Federation was found by the ICJ in a judgment on 31 January 2024 to be in breach of its obligation under ITC SFT. In particular, the court determined that the Russian Federation failed to fulfill its obligation to investigate allegations of terrorism financing involving individuals present on its territory. Despite the existence of credible evidence and sufficiently detailed allegations concerning the financing of armed groups associated with the so-called DPR and LPR, the Russian Federation failed to identify suspects, conduct proper investigations, or cooperate with Ukraine. Russia thus invokes obligation which it has itself demonstrably failed to comply with. Ukraine also takes this opportunity to note that in the same judgment of 31 January 2024, the ICJ founded that the Russian Federation in violation of its obligation under the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The court established that Russia engaged in acts of racial discrimination and failed to ensure that its public authorities complied with this obligation. In particular, the court found violations related to the right to education, including to the systematic restrictions of education in the Ukrainian language in Crimea following its occupation in 2014. This finding directly contradicts the Russian Federation's recurring claims of alleged systematic discrimination against the Russian speaking population. The Russian Federation may distort the decision of the court, but it cannot change them. I thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation is compelled to satisfy a reply in response to comments made by the PR of Namibia with regard to the Moroccan Sahara. It is regrettable that the delegation of Namibia chose to diverge a debate on the Essential Committee for the Charter to introduce a question relating to the political process conducted under the auspices of the Secretary-General and his personal envoy under the authority of the Security Council. On substance, Mindal Gishman will recall to Namibia that the Security Council has clearly laid out the path to follow in his resolution twenty-seven ninety-seven adopted in two thousand twenty-five concerning the market proposal for autonomy as a base for negotiation without preconditions, recognizing that it could be the most plausible, feasible solution. The delegation of Navy should not speak about the Security Consultation without mentioning the most recent provisions. Madam Chair, I would like to note a fundamental contradiction in the position of Namibia. This country today is invoking with such insistence the right to self determination, but it itself has been facing a secession in the region of Caprivi, which was led under the same principle. The operations that followed led to severe violations of human rights, including arbitrary detention and torture. documented by international organizations for human rights. The brave people of KPV also deserve to have its rights to dignity and legitimate aspirations be respected. Namibia only invokes self determination when it comes to another state, but is opposed to it on its own territory. The principles of the charter should not be applied selectively based on different borders or geopolitical interests. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Namibia is not subject to the report under discussion of this committee. Neither are Namibians hosted anywhere as refugees. In fact, Namibia is a host to many refugees who are afforded with the right to human dignity. Neither is Namibia the case in the United Nations. The Saharawi people are denied their right to self determination as they continue to suffer under colonial subjugation. Nibia's position is that of principle rooted in its own history, which speaks to the very law that we are all in this chamber. Have agreed to be abiding to. Namibia's position is not personal, and Namibia has no reason or purpose to stop, to stoop that law. Henceforth, there is no reason as to why we should be interpret there there should be such interpretation. Our statement hinges directly on the implementation of the United Nations Charter. Madam Chair, Nibia's statement, let me remind this. Committee that Namibia's statement did not make reference to any delegation, but made a factual reference to the suffering people of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, who are denied their right to human dignity and their right to self determination. The United Nations has a responsibility to support all refugees, including those living in the camps of Tenduf, whose future is denied while the resources of their country continue to be exploited. By the imperial forces. What my delegation is asking for is for the Saharawi refugees and the Saharawi people to be accorded the same respect and dignity in addressing their needs. The same way this organization afforded to the Namibian people when we were in the trenches. If perhaps the colonial power could implement the United Nations General Assembly resolutions in a letter and spirit, there would be no need for us to come here. And talk about the suffering of the Sahrawi people, but make a burden of this United Nations lesser. No explanation will ever sound right when the people are being denied their right, their human dignity, and their fundamental freedoms. We urge the occupying power to stand up and be counted on the right side of this matter. History will always remember. Those who stood for what is right. Let me repeat that Namibia is not subject, or neither is Namibia a case in the United Nations, but this Arawi Arab Democratic Republic is, which is denied their self determination. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to reaffirm that the so-called South China Sea Arbitration Award is illegal and is null and void. The essence of the South China Sea dispute between China and the Fu uh and the Philippines lies in territorial and maritime boundary issues. Territorial issues fall outside the scope of the convention. And Matters of maritime boundary delimitation have been excluded from mandatory procedures by a declaration made by China in 2006 persuading Article 8 of the Convention, and the Arbitral Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the matters subject to arbitration. We hope that the Philippines could clarify uh as to what issues the arbitral uh award uh uh r settled. If it's maritime demarcation, the arbitrary tribunal from the very beginning should have no jurisdiction. If it's not about maritime demarcation, and then what basis does it constitute to settle the differences between our two countries? As a matter of fact, the arbitrary tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction uh jurisdiction and this is toxic and it has no legal effect whatsoever. The so-called uh ward uh disregarded legal principles and facts on island regime outlining archipelagos of continental states and on historical uh rights, uh thereby reached extremely erroneous conclusions, seriously undermining the enclosed principles and spirit and gravely undermining international rule of law. China does not accept or recognize this award precisely to uphold rule of law at sea and maintain a fair and reasonable international maritime order. The Philippines is hyping up this issue. It's not meaningful at all. The fact of the matter is the award did not settle this issue. It has become a tool for the Philippines to claim more land and is aggravating the issue. This has become an obstacle for the friendly relations between countries and over the South China Sea issue. In terms of territorial and maritime demarcation, China does not accept any uh uh uh uh solution that is imposed on us. We have to uh base ourselves on history and through dialogue and negotiation uh so as to come to a solution to solve the issue. We would like to urge the Philippines to stop hyping up the issue and come back to the right track for uh bilateral consultation so as to jointly safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea. I thank you, Chair.
sir. Thank you again, Madam Chair. The Philippines takes the floor once again in exercise of its right of reply. The Philippines rejects China's characterization of the arbitration and its outcome. First, On state consent, by becoming parties to the ONC Clause, both the Philippines and China consented to its dispute settlement framework, including compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under paragraph 15 of Part 15 of the Convention, and does not require separate consent to each arbitration instituted in accordance with its provisions. China's non-participation in the proceedings did not deprive the tribunal of its jurisdiction. Second, on jurisdiction, the tribunal carefully examined the scope of the disputes submitted to it, including China's declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS. It determined that the matters over which it exercised jurisdiction concerned the interpretation and application of the convention and did not require it to decide questions of territorial sovereignty. Or delimit any maritime boundary. The tribunal thus acted within its jurisdiction, conferred upon it by the UNCLOS. Third, under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex 7, the award is final and binding on the parties. China's continued rejection, the award has no bearing on its legal force. The award neither expanded Philippine territory nor created new maritime entitlements. Rather, to respond to China's question, the award clarified the rights and obligations of the parties under the UNCLOS, including the limits of maritime claims based on purported historic rights. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the award this year, we recall its resounding affirmation of the UNCLOS and its dispute settlement mechanism. Judicial decisions and arbitral awards rendered under the convention have significance beyond the parties to a particular dispute. By clarifying international law, they strengthen legal certainty, guide state conduct, and contribute to the peaceful and predictable governance of the oceans. Yet, notwithstanding the tribunal's finding being overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines, serious incidents continue to occur in the South China Sea, including infringements upon Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction. These developments underscore the continuing importance of respect for international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Ten years have not diminished their ward significance. The passage of time cannot extinguish rights under international law or relieve states of their treaty obligations. The Philippines remains committed to dialogue, diplomacy, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. But dialogue must proceed on the basis of international law. including on class, and with full respect for legally binding decisions. The Philippines will continue to uphold the twenty sixteen Arbitral Award as an integral part of the international legal order governing disease. Thank you, Madam Chair.
sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation will be brief. The delegation of Nambibi has not responded to the contradiction that we pointed out. So I will ask a simpler question. How can one defend self-determination in New York but refuse it in Katimamolido? After the events of Caprivi, people accused have to wait sixteen years in prison before being judged. About twenty of them died. Twenty-five years later, victims are still waiting for justice. In twenty twenty four. Twenty-five years later, the UN Committee Against Torture examined allegations of torture linked to these events with regard to Namibia. Madam Chair, in the Moroccan Sahara, you need to respond to the fallacious remarks by this delegation. We've invested more than $8 billion since 2015, with the GDP per inhabitant 25% higher than the average in the country. The population of the Moroccan Sahara are managing their economic, political, and cultural affairs well, and just a few weeks ago they chose a representative through a democratic process, reaffirming their full participation in the present and future of our nation in Morocco. Lastly, Madam Chair, Morocco has no need to justify its territorial integrity before a delegation that lacks credibility in its remarks.
I think I thank you, Madam Chair. Namibia shall not be dragged into a baseless war of words. We shall not answer to a case that does not exist. Our focus Is on the case of Western Sahara, a real case of real people whose lives deserve a better living. Namibia, as I indicated earlier, is not the case in the United Nations. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is the case in the Security Council as a result of its people being denied the right to self determination as they continue to suffer under colonial subjugation. Namibia's position is that of a principle. Rooted in its own history, which speaks to the very law that we all in this chamber have undertaken to uphold. Nambia's position is not personal as I indicated earlier, and Nambia has no reason or purpose to stoop that law. Our settlement hinges directly on the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions in line with the Charter of the United Nations. No explanation, Madam Chair. Will ever sound right when people are being denied their right, when people are being denied their fundamental freedoms and human dignity. We urge the occupying power to stand up and be counted on the right side of this matter. History will always be remembered by those who stood for what is right. I thank you, Madam Chair.
It's really a mockery of the Charter of the United Nations when the delegation of the Israeli regime claims its its adherence to the Charter, calling this cornerstone, while their delegation literally shredded the UN Charter in the General Assembly. To show their contempt and disregard to the UN Charter in plain sight in the UN General Assembly, a formal meeting. But this has not been the only disregard that they had to the Charter. In practice, they have violated nearly every provision of the UN Charter, looking only into the first sentence of the Charter of the United Nations aspiration, which is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. And in the region, right now. The source of instability and war is the Israeli regime, attacking nearly every country in the region, killing civilians, targeting civilian objects. And these are quite known to everyone. I don't need to elaborate on that. Well documented in the proceedings before the International Court of Justice, other international institutions, and also reflected in the UN General Assembly resolution and many other documents. We do not need to elaborate on that, it's clear for everyone. If you move forward after the first sentence, then the Article 1. Of the UN Charter, which contains reference to self-determination. For decades, the Israeli regime is denying the right of Palestinian people to self determination. The Israeli regime, which is in its entirety, is on the basis of occupation. And this has also been well established in the relevant international legal instruments. Also, this has been pronounced by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion in 2025. 2024, stating this is a quote from the ICJ Advisory opinion. Among the obligations ergo umness violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self determination. End of quote. And of course, the court goes on to explain how this has happened the denial of self determination of Palestinian people by the Israeli regime. Was followed and conducted by commission of genocide, war crime, crime against humanity, terrorism, torture, occupation, new forms of terrorism, settler terrorism, you see what's happening in Palestine. Moving forward, Article 2, reference to the prohibition of threat or use of force. Every country, nearly every country in the region has been subjected to these unlawful acts by the occupying regime. And I do not want to go to go through every single article of the UN Charter. But I think we could go to the end. Article 105 regarding the privileges, immunities of the United Nations personnel and officials. The highest death toll in UN history has been the result of the Israeli killing of UN personnel. Again, the ICJ, in its advisor opinion, 2025, states this is a quote from the ICJ, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has stated that between 7 October 2023 And 20 August 2025, 366 United Nations personnel have been killed in the Gaza Strip. End of quote. And this only belongs to the period of 7 October 2023 and 20 August 2025. And the number has risen, to our knowledge, near 400 UN personnel. There is no provision of the UN Charter that the Israeli regime has not violated, it's clear for everyone. And speaking about human rights. Of course, the Israeli regime is violating the very most fundamental human rights of people in the region, the fundamental of which is the right to life, especially the right to life of children. And there are myriads of statistics, unfortunately, that children are the principal victims of the Israeli regime, genocide. To just name a few, according to the UN reports, more than twenty thousand Palestinian children had been killed in Palestine. Equivalent to an average of approximately 22 children killed every day since 7 October 2023. Separately, at some point, the UN reported I quote this is from the UN reports an average of 28 children have been killed each day, the equivalent of an entire classroom. End of quote. In its blatant aggression against my country, the Israeli regime also killed hundreds of children toddlers. And even unborn babies, most of them together with their parents, an entire family. The magnitude of the savagery of the Israeli regime is to the extent that due to its persistent killing of children in Palestine, there has emerged a new term in medical context. It's called Wounded Child No Surviving Family, which refers simply to Palestinian children injured while their parents were also killed by the Israeli regime. And recently, the Israeli regime was included in the blacklist of the main perpetrators of grave violations affecting children in the conf in armed conflicts. I can go and expound on this, but the statements of many delegations in the United Nations has made it clear. Everyone knows what's happening. The baseless statements by the Israeli regime could not help them whitewash the genocide they're committing in Palestine and what crimes and aggression they're committing in the region. Maybe I just end my rite of reply by stating that the child cling is the true designation of the Israeli regime. Uh everyone knows this. I thank you.
Shukran a say the racer. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. On behalf of member states of the JCC and Member States in the United Arab Emirates as well, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the state of Qatar, Kuwait, and my country, Bahrain, and in response to the intervention by one of the states, an intervention that includes accusations that we would like to refute as follows. Our member states categorically refuse claims that it facilitate that they facilitated. any uh attacks against Iran or put their territories as um as a springboard for attacks against Iran. We stress that we are not a party to this conflict and that those accusations are f are unfounded and it could not be a pretext to uh undermine our sovereignty, interfere in our internal affairs or target our territories. Our country's sovereign decisions, including its relations with member states, is a matter that belongs to our states alone and no other country has the right to interfere directly or in indirectly in these decisions, and for no matter what reason, they could not also be used as pretext to use force against our territories. The simple claim that it is part of a self defense argument cannot justify the use of force against our countries. The Security Council in its resolution 2817 of 2026 has stressed our right to defend ourselves in the face of these armed attacks. And this does not absolve anyone from any commitment under international humanitarian law that should be applied at every juncture, no matter what the causes for the conflicts were. In resolution 12 uh 2817 of 2026, the Security Council already recognized that the attacks against our territories are a violation of international law and it stressed our right to self defense. We cannot really use uh Article 151 and 3000 and resolution 3314 uh cannot be used in this pretext, no matter how many narratives. The fact remains. That our countries are not party to this conflict and will therefore have the right to self-defense and against any attacks on its territories. And we would only like to recall Article 25 of the Security Council of the UN Charter that calls for the fact that member states should accept the resolutions of the Security Council and implement them according to the Charter. What we're stressing today is based on clear. resolutions adopted by Security Council organs and facts cannot be changed and d decisions should be reflected should be respected under the the Charter of the United Nations. Thank you.
Verbatim from the transcript. A reply is identified from its own words, the Chair's grant, or its place in the right-of-reply sequence; delegations and addressees follow the transcript's attribution.