First Committee, 16th plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session
Thematic discussion on specific subjects and introduction and consideration of all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under agenda items (from 92 to 109)
Rights of reply
10 replies by 6 delegations
🇷🇺 Russian Federation, 🇺🇸 United States, 🇮🇱 Israel, 🇱🇹 Lithuania, 🇺🇦 Ukraine, European Union
🇷🇺 Russian FederationSecond replyin response to United States, Finland
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to react to the unfounded statement by the delegation of the United States, the delegation of Finland, and other delegations regarding Russian peaceful space activity. Once again, we will repeat for those delegations that all Russian activity in space fully corresponds to international commitments and obligations of Russia, is uh purely uh peaceful in character and is not aimed at any states. This applies to the activity related to the Cosmos 2612 space uh uh uh equipment. If uh the US uh has any concerns about this activity, we have been uh suggesting for many years to deal with these concerns very simply by developing uh and adopting a legally binding instrument on preventing an arms race in space. Which would prohibit the placement of weapons in space and also would prohibit certain types of activity and would limit them. As for the attempts to distort the approaches uh of uh the Russian Federation to space activity, that supposedly they only applied to capabilities, that is not the case. We are suggesting uh bans and prohibitions both uh uh on specific capabilities and uh uh certain types of act activities. As for a statement in twenty twenty two, we would like to uh Appeal to the U.S. to support the relevant draft resolution submitted by the Russian Federation, which we're presenting in the fourth committee of the General Assembly, and which is aimed at prohib prohibiting the use of of uh uh civilian space uh satellites in uh uh for uh non uh civilian purposes. And in conclusion, I'd like to use the words of the United States itself, that the uh actions of the United States uh sound much louder than the words they speak here in the committee. And these activities should not mislead anyone. The transparency that the US uh demonstrates is aimed merely to promote an arms race and aimed at justifying the placement of weapons in space. Thank you.
🇺🇸 United StatesFirst replyin response to Ukraine
Thank you, Chair. The United States notes the comments from the Russian delegation yesterday regarding the U.S. cooperative biological activities and wishes to exercise our right of reply in response to these repeated allegations, which were made at the last as the last comment before we moved on to a new cluster. Let me be clear. Russia's allegations against the United States in Ukraine. Excuse me, there is a point of order.
🇷🇺 Russian FederationSecond replyin response to United States
Thank you, mister Chairman. We would like to request uh clarification as we We thought that uh we had uh we had finished work on the second cluster yesterday. All statements under the right of reply were uh completed on that cluster today. We're not discussing we haven't discussed the second cluster. And at the end of today's meeting, as far as we understand it, our s segments on the right of reply uh applied to c a third cluster, space, and the fourth cluster, uh conventional weapons. The delegation of the United States had a chance to sp to exercise its right of reply yesterday. Today as we see it, uh statements on the second cluster uh contradict the procedure that we agreed and our methods of work. Thank you. Uh I would like to remind that it's uh at its organizational meeting, the committee decided that attendance to in exercise of rights of reply will take place at the end of each day. There were differing interpretation of this decision when more than one thematic cluster is considered at a given meeting. Yesterday, the Chair proceeded with taking all statements cluster by cluster at the end of the day. Today, once again, two thematic clusters are being considered. Delegations can exercise their rights of reply at the end of the day, but the chair has first allowed rights of reply on the first cluster, which was concluded earlier today. The committee is now listening to rights of reply at the end of the day. I hope this clarifies the situation. Russian Federation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We completely uh agree with your explanations and fully ready to follow those explanations, but uh based on these explanations today at the end of this meeting. We have an opportunity of making statements under right of reply on the clusters that we have been discussing today, just as we did yesterday. Today we discussed cluster three, space, and cluster four conventional weapons. We did not discuss cluster uh two, other uh types of weapons of mass destruction. This is why we believe that it is not quite uh uh consistent with this with the explanations you have m uh offered us and the decisions that have made not quite consistent to give the p the U.S. the possibility of uh a right of reply on the second cluster. Of course they can uh uh on on cluster three and four of course, but on we c we completed our discussion of cluster two yesterday. Thank you.
🇺🇸 United StatesSecond reply
Thank you, Chair. Let me be clear. Russia's allegations against the United States and Ukraine are false. As we stated yesterday, the United States is in full compliance with its obligations under the BWC. It does not develop or possess biological or toxin weapons anywhere. All of our biological activities are for purposes fully consistent with our obligations under the BWC. This includes the cooperation and assistance activities that Russia and others seek to malign. In addition, the United States has been extraordinarily transparent about the history of our program and its elimination. In December, we held a side event on the margins of the BWC where we shared extensive detail on the processes to destroy our biological weapon stockpiles and convert U.S. facilities to peaceful purposes in the 1970s, processes in which we invested millions of dollars. Notably, there has not been an equal degree of transparency from the Russian Federation about its own history with biological weapons. Russia claims that we have provided no responses to its questions. In fact, We have answered those questions over and over in a written response provided detailed information on U.S. cooperation and assistance activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, which was shared both with Russia and with the other BWC states' parties, and in statements and technical briefings at the 2022 Article V formal consultative meeting. It is clear that Moscow is not interested in hearing our responses to its questions. nor in engaging in good faith. But the fact is that the United States has been open and transparent about our past offensive program and its elimination, as well as the nature and details of our cooperative overseas activities. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of the Russian Federation. Thank you, Chair.
🇷🇺 Russian FederationSecond reply
Mr. Chairman, we'd like to react to the statement uh of the European Union, which has tried to distort the situation on the uh anti personnel conven ban convention. Now um the uh S withdrawal of uh neighboring countries of uh r of Russia from that convention is uh example of their cavalier attitude to international legal c commitments, uh readiness to reject any uh those that are inconvenient whenever they feel it necessary. Uh attempts by these states to motivate these uh steps by so-called national security or uh or so-called ostensible threat from Russia uh hold do not hold water. The withdrawal from the convention is uh accompanied by a significant increase by these countries of military activities on their eastern borders directly next to Russian borders, as well as plans to establish uh legal production of uh earlier uh uh banned munitions uh for the needs of the Ukraine armed forces, which clearly does not contribute to easing uh tensions that these states keep talking about. On a separate point, we'd like to just mention the obligations of Ukraine under the convention and its inconsistent steps with regard to this document. The continued use by the Ukrainian armed forces of antipersonnel mines is a violation of the convention on banning antipersonnel mines. And the Ukraine continues to be a party to that uh convention in spite of its notification of suspension of the document. In accordance with the Article 65 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, such a suspension can only take into effect if no objections have been raised by parties within three months. At the same time, based on information we have, uh such uh objections were submitted to the Secretary-General of the UN by certain members member states of the anti-personnel mine convention soon after the notification by Ukraine. At the same time, obligations under the Anti Mine Convention were not fulfilled by Kiev even before this notification. According to the requirements of the Convention. Uh Ukraine was supposed to back in twenty ten destroyed stockpiles of all its antipersonnel mines except a minimal amount required for developing methods of identifying means and training uh specialists. However, it uh did not do so. Uh the use by the Kiev regime of antipersonnel mines against civilians is regularly identified by the Russian security forces. At the same time, the these uh violations of the convention did not uh uh lead to a response from its uh uh member states. The situation around the convention uh simply confirms Russian uh assessments regarding the weakness of this uh treaty. The convention does not uh have the necessary leverage on countries which uh one way or another avoid fulfilling its obligations. Unlike the aforementioned countries, the Russian Federation continues to fulfill its obligations in good faith under Protocol 2 and Protocol 5 on the Convention on Inhumane Weapons. With regard to the use of mines, from the very beginning of the special military operation, the Russian Armed Forces are acting in accordance with a manual on international humanitarian law for the armed forces of Russia. In this document, Inter alia, uh uh it identifies the main requirements on the use of antipersonnel mines in accordance with uh uh Protocol II on the con of the Convention on Inhumane Weapons. The results of our national efforts to prevent the mine threat are regularly reflected in Russian reports under the Convention on Inhumane Weapons and its additional Protocol two and Protocol five. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would request that you strictly uh follow the methods of work that we have agreed on and the Russian Federation will oppose the violation of these methods of work by any delegation, no matter who which delegation undertakes these steps. We will not accept rights of reply on just on any clusters at the end of the day. We only discuss items that we discussed during this specific meeting or during that day. Thank you.
🇮🇱 IsraelFirst reply
Requesting the right of life.
🇱🇹 LithuaniaFirst reply
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the response of uh the right of reply made just by the Russian Federation, my country would like to emphasize that Russian Federation is not in opposition to lecture on the withdrawals from the Convention itself is not a party to. We have witnessed Russia's deliberate target again of civilians, Russia's extensive and indiscriminate use of cluster munitions and mines in Ukraine, and Russia's complete disregard for international humanitarian law. Russia is not a party to the Ottawa and Oslo conventions. Lithuania's decision on the Ottawa and Oslo conventions were not made lightly nor in isolation. These decisions followed broad consultations domestically and with partners and were taken in full transparency and in full accordance with the provisions of the conventions. We continue to value the humanitarian character on the of the conventions and recognize their important role. in protecting civ civilians worldwide, not as Russia. Thank you.
🇺🇦 UkraineFirst replyin response to Russian Federation
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our delegation would like to exercise its right of reply to the statement made. Made by the delegation of the Russian Federation. Russia, which is not a party state party to the Ottawa Convention, has extensively used antipersonal mines throughout this war of aggression against Ukraine, has neither the legal nor the moral authority to lecture about Ukraine's obligations under the Ottawa Convention. We would like to remind that in 2005, Ukraine ratified the Ottawa Convention. And since then has faithfully fulfilled its obligations. At the same time, the Russian Federation launched an armed aggression against Ukraine since 2014, has extensively used anti-personal mines as a method of warfare. Since 2022, when Russia began its full scale invasion of Ukraine, its mass use of such means has created an asymmetric advantage for the aggressor. We emphasize that at the time of Ukraine's signing and ratification of the Ottawa Convention, such circumstances did not exist and could not have been foreseen. As a result, Ukraine has found itself in an equal and unjust situation that restricts its right to self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Ukraine is not alone in facing the difficult choice between fulfilling its obligations under the Ottawa Convention and ensuring the effective defense of its homeland from a ruthless aggressor that disregards all norms of international law. Ukraine believes that in a international community must understand that the regional security situation has significantly Country deteriorated since Ukraine joined the Ottawa Convention. In this regard, in order to protect our country from Russian uh atrocities, Ukraine has made a difficult but necessary political decision to stop the implementation of certain obligations under the Ottawa Convention. In the context of Russia's ongoing genocide aimed at destroying Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as a nation, Ukraine is compelled to give unconditional priority to the security of its citizens and the defense of our state. This applies in particularly to our state's participation in international legal instruments and mechanisms. Thank you.
European UnionFirst reply
Thank you, Chair. In response to Russia's right of reply. Uh the widespread contamination of Ukraine's territory with uh antipersonal mines, other mines, unexploded ordnance and other explosive remnants of war as a result of Russia's war of aggression continues to kill and injure civilians, including children, obstructs access to agricultural land and essential services, and will have severe long term humanitarian and socio economic consequences. Russia must fully comply with international humanitarian law. Including the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. Those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law must be held accountable. The EU will continue to support efforts to survey, mark, clear, and safely dispose of mines, unexploded ordnance, and explosive remnants of war in Ukraine, as well as risk education, victim assistance, and broad recovery efforts. Humanitarian demining is essential to protect civilians. restore livelihoods and enable the safe return of displaced persons. The EU also underlines the importance of international cooperation and assistance in addressing the long-term impact of explosive hazards in Ukraine. Thank you, Chair.
🇷🇺 Russian FederationSecond reply
Mr. Chairman, we'd like to react very briefly to the spurious uh accusations against the Russian Federation by a number of uh delegations who just spoke. I would like to assure all delegation all these delegations that the special military operation is being conducted by the Russian Federation in full compliance with its international obligations, and in my previous statement under the right of reply, we provided the necessary arguments uh uh to back that up. As for the special military operation itself, I would like to assure these delegations that in f in full compliance with international law, the goals of the special military operations uh will be fully met. 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.
Speaking timeRepublic of Korea (11.7%) · Russian Federation (9%) · Chair (7.9%) + 32 more · Unattributed (1.7%)
First Committee, 16th meeting of the 81st session. Agenda item taken up: “Thematic discussion on specific subjects and introduction and consideration of all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under agenda items (from 92 to 109)”. 29 speakers were heard, representing 27 delegations. Rights of reply were exercised 10 times.
Rights of reply · 10
🇷🇺 Russian FederationSECOND REPLY · in response to United States, Finland
Russian Federation stated that all Russian activity in space, including that related to Cosmos 2612, was purely peaceful and in line with its international obligations, and urged the US to support the Russian draft resolution being presented in the fourth committee of the General Assembly.
🇺🇸 United StatesFIRST REPLY · in response to Ukraine
“Thank you, Chair. The United States notes the comments from the Russian delegation yesterday regarding the U.S. cooperative biological activities and wishes to exercise our right of reply in response to these repeated allegations, which were made at the last as the last comment before we moved on to a new cluster. Let …”
🇷🇺 Russian FederationSECOND REPLY · in response to United States
“Thank you, mister Chairman. We would like to request uh clarification as we We thought that uh we had uh we had finished work on the second cluster yesterday. All statements under the right of reply were uh completed on that cluster today. We're not discussing we haven't discussed the second cluster. And at the end of …”
🇺🇸 United StatesSECOND REPLY
“Thank you, Chair. Let me be clear. Russia's allegations against the United States and Ukraine are false. As we stated yesterday, the United States is in full compliance with its obligations under the BWC. It does not develop or possess biological or toxin weapons anywhere. All of our biological activities are for purpo…”
🇷🇺 Russian FederationSECOND REPLY
Russian Federation stated that the Russian Armed Forces act in accordance with international humanitarian law on the use of mines, that Russia fulfils its obligations under Protocol 2 and Protocol 5, and that the goals of the special military operation would be fully met.
🇮🇱 IsraelFIRST REPLY
“Requesting the right of life.…”
🇱🇹 LithuaniaFIRST REPLY
Lithuania emphasized that the Russian Federation was not in a position to lecture on withdrawals from a Convention to which it was not a party, citing what it called Russia's deliberate targeting of civilians and extensive and indiscriminate use of cluster munitions and mines in Ukraine.
Lithuania stated that Lithuania's decisions on the Ottawa and Oslo conventions followed broad consultations domestically and with partners, were taken in full transparency and in full accordance with the conventions' provisions, and that it continued to value their humanitarian character.
🇺🇦 UkraineFIRST REPLY · in response to Russian Federation
Ukraine stated that Ukraine had made a difficult but necessary political decision to stop implementing certain obligations under the Ottawa Convention, citing what it called Russia's mass use of anti-personal mines and Ukraine's right to self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
European UnionFIRST REPLY
European Union stated that Russia must fully comply with international humanitarian law, that those responsible for serious violations must be held accountable, and that the EU will continue to support surveying, clearing and disposing of mines and explosive remnants of war in Ukraine, along with risk education and victim assistance.
🇷🇺 Russian FederationSECOND REPLY
“Mr. Chairman, we'd like to react very briefly to the spurious uh accusations against the Russian Federation by a number of uh delegations who just spoke. I would like to assure all delegation all these delegations that the special military operation is being conducted by the Russian Federation in full compliance with i…”
Points of disagreement
Cuba opposed the extension of an arms race in outer space, the refinement of space weaponry, and the presence or placement of military material there; it described the United States' acknowledgement of deploying weapons in outer space as further evidence of what it called an unceasing quest for military and imperialist domination.
Islamic Republic of Iran strongly condemned the US and the Israeli regime for what it called destructive policies and activities that threaten international peace and security and accelerate an arms race in outer space, including deployment of weapons in outer space and offensive military space capabilities used in aggression against Iran.
Ukraine expressed concern over information presented by the United States on Russia's development of a space based nuclear device and on Cosmos 2612, stating that placing nuclear weapons in orbit would constitute a flagrant violation of Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty.
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its member states, expressed concern over massive contamination from antipersonal mines and explosive remnants of war in what it called Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, and urged Russia to adhere to its international legal obligations, including international humanitarian law and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Key points
Republic of Korea presented a report on the third session of the open-ended working group on the prevention of armed race in the outer space in all its aspects, which met in July and continued its substantive consideration of the issues under Agenda Item 6.
Indonesia expressed concern over threats to the security and sustainability of outer space, including weaponization and militarization, as reflected in recent declarations concerning deployment of onorbit space control weapons.
New Zealand, on behalf of Khan's group, expressed concern over civilian suffering caused by armed conflict, noting that conventional weapons are destroying lives and essential services and that explosive remnants of war prevent communities from returning home, and citing the Cluster Munition Monitor figure of more than 1,000 people killed or injured in 2025.
Statement by statement · 28 speakers
🇰🇷 Republic of Korea
Republic of Korea presented a report on the third session of the open-ended working group on the prevention of armed race in the outer space in all its aspects, which met in July and continued its substantive consideration of the issues under Agenda Item 6.
Republic of Korea stated that every delegation without exception contributed to a constructive, serious and cooperative atmosphere, and that the willingness to remain at the same table was itself a precious achievement to be recognized, protected and built upon.
Republic of Korea noted that discussions showed broad support for reducing risk through practical non-binding measures and consideration of legally binding obligations, with areas of convergence identified, while important differences remain on definitions, on the scope and design of possible legal instruments, and on priorities.
Republic of Korea emphasized that trust is scarce and must be built and maintained through patience and sustained honest dialogue, and that the group will meet again for its fourth session in November.
🇦🇲 Armenia
Armenia stated that Armenia supports the peaceful use of outer space and initiatives preventing an arms race in outer space, and firmly believes it must remain a domain of peace, cooperation, and scientific progress.
Armenia noted that Armenia launched its first satellite in 2022, reached a milestone a year later with a satellite fully assembled and tested by Armenian specialists, and plans a distributed network of ground stations.
🇰🇿 Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan reaffirmed the central importance of the outer space treaty and applicable international law, including the United National Charter, to activities in outer space.
Kazakhstan supported efforts to prevent an armed race in outer space, including political commitments on no first placement of weapons in outer space and negotiation of a legally binding instrument in the conference on disarmament.
🇻🇳 Viet Nam
Viet Nam underscored the importance of preserving outer space as a domain of peace for the benefit of all humankinds, with all activities conducted in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law.
Viet Nam supported the pursuit of negotiation on an internationally legally binding instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and welcomed the ongoing discussions within the open ended working group.
🇪🇹 Ethiopia
Ethiopia stressed that the prevention of an arms race in outer space was an urgent priority for international peace and security, and that an arms race would disproportionately affect states with limited space capabilities.
Ethiopia emphasized that developing and non-spacefaring states must have a meaningful voice in shaping international space security rules, and that decisions on the future security architecture of outer space cannot be determined exclusively by states with the most advanced space capabilities.
🇹🇭 Thailand
Thailand stated Thailand views outer space as a global commons, affirms the inalienable right of all states to explore and use it for peaceful purposes, and is concerned by the growing militarization of outer space.
Thailand reaffirmed support for the prevention of an arms race in outer space and the work of the OEWG, and stated that norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviors and legally binding measures are complementary and mutually reinforcing.
🇮🇩 Indonesia · on behalf of of the non-aligned movement
Indonesia expressed concern over threats to the security and sustainability of outer space, including weaponization and militarization, as reflected in recent declarations concerning deployment of onorbit space control weapons.
Indonesia urged states to refrain from distractive anti-satellite activities that generate long-lived debris and to strengthen international cooperation and information sharing; practical measures such as advanced notification and consultation must complement and not substitute for a legally binding commitment.
Indonesia supported substantive negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a universal, legally binding, and multilaterally verifiable instrument on PAROS, including prohibition of any weapons in outer space.
🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia emphasized that the use of outer space must remain devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes, free from conflict and military activities, and that any form of weaponization that could cause serious harm to humanity should be prevented.
Saudi Arabia announced that it hosted the second edition of the Space Debris Conference in Riyadh from 26th to the 27th of January 2026 with participation from 75 countries, and that it is fully prepared to cooperate with all parties on solutions to threats in outer space.
🇲🇲 Myanmar
Myanmar reiterated that preventing an arms race in outer space remained an urgent priority, and reaffirmed the right of all states to explore and use outer space for peaceful purposes without discrimination.
Myanmar expressed concern about expanding cooperation between the military junta and foreign states in satellite technologies, saying satellite-derived intelligence and other dual-use technology could facilitate further atrocities against the people of Myanmar.
🇨🇺 Cuba
Cuba said a legally binding international instrument to prevent an arms race in outer space, including preventing the placement of weapons there, should also prohibit the use or threat of use of force against satellites or any other types of space objects.
Cuba opposed the extension of an arms race in outer space, the refinement of space weaponry, and the presence or placement of military material there; it described the United States' acknowledgement of deploying weapons in outer space as further evidence of what it called an unceasing quest for military and imperialist domination.
🇬🇷 Greece
Greece reaffirmed that the five United Nations treaties on outer space, in particular the Outer Space Treaty, and the relevant UN General Assembly sets of principles constitute the cornerstone of international space law, and said outer space must remain free of weapons of mass destruction.
Greece stated that an approach based on responsible behaviors offers a more realistic framework to improve space security today, given the dual use nature of many space systems, without excluding new legally binding instruments in the future.
🇦🇹 Austria
Austria expressed concern about current dynamics threatening to turn outer space into another unstable arena for military conflict, and about the potential humanitarian consequences on Earth of a conflict in outer space.
Austria introduced draft resolution L37, Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, on behalf of a cross-regional group of countries, which calls on high contracting parties to advance to negotiations on an instrument.
🇪🇸 Spain
Spain condemned destructive direct ascent anti-satellite missile tests, supported a voluntary moratorium on them to which it had committed nationally together with a growing number of other states, and invited other states to join.
Spain reiterated the obligation to ensure full respect for international law and treaties in force on space, stating that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty must be fully complied with and that international humanitarian law applies in outer space in armed conflict.
🇬🇭 Ghana
Ghana announced that Ghana's cabinet had approved the establishment of a Ghana Space Agency, with work underway to develop the necessary legislative and institutional framework.
Ghana expressed concern about the weaponization of outer space and related activities that threaten space systems, and about intentional space debris creation through destructive anti satellite missile testing.
🇺🇸 United States
United States proposed developing non-legally binding measures centered on voluntary behaviors practiced by space operators as the most practical way to reduce risk, and rejected proposals for legally binding instruments, including no first placement, as unverifiable and hypocritical.
🇯🇵 Japan
Japan underscored the importance of the Outer Space Treaty as the cornerstone of the international legal framework governing outer space, and the urgency for states parties to implement or operationalize its obligations.
Japan stressed the importance of the moratorium on destructive direct ascent anti satellite missile testing, which it considered a practical way forward in reducing destabilizing space activities.
🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran
Islamic Republic of Iran strongly condemned the US and the Israeli regime for what it called destructive policies and activities that threaten international peace and security and accelerate an arms race in outer space, including deployment of weapons in outer space and offensive military space capabilities used in aggression against Iran.
Islamic Republic of Iran called for the CD to commence negotiations on a comprehensive, legally binding and non-discriminatory instrument prohibiting the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat or use of force against outer space objects, noting the Russia-China draft PPWT as an important basis.
Islamic Republic of Iran categorically rejected what it called baseless allegations by the US and the Israeli regime, stating that Iran's space program is transparent, peaceful and consistent with international law, and that its missile program is a conventional and legitimate defense capability.
🇳🇬 Nigeria
Nigeria reaffirmed its commitment to the prevention of an armed race in outer space and the preservation of outer space as a domain of peace, cooperation, and shared benefit for all humanity.
Nigeria underscored the urgent need to strengthen the existing international legal framework through a legally binding and verifiable instrument prohibiting the placement of weapons in outer space and preventing the threat or use of force against space objects.
Nigeria welcomed the establishment of the consolidated open-ended working group on paros and reiterated its call for the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate instruments to prevent an armed race in outer space.
🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates
United Arab Emirates underscored the importance of preserving outer space as a shared resource and stressed the need to reinforce the principles of peaceful use of outer space, so that scientific progress serves sustainable development and strengthens peace and security on Earth.
United Arab Emirates called for full compliance by all states with the provisions of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and for states to refrain from placing weapons of mass destruction or other weapons in Earth's orbit or elsewhere in outer space.
🇺🇦 Ukraine
Ukraine reaffirmed that international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and international humanitarian law applies to activities in outer space, and supported the development of clear norms, rules, and principles of responsible behavior.
Ukraine expressed concern over information presented by the United States on Russia's development of a space based nuclear device and on Cosmos 2612, stating that placing nuclear weapons in orbit would constitute a flagrant violation of Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty.
Ukraine stated that Ukraine had made a difficult but necessary political decision to stop implementing certain obligations under the Ottawa Convention, citing what it called Russia's mass use of anti-personal mines and Ukraine's right to self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
🇱🇾 Libya
Libya expressed concern about the accelerating militarization of outer space and the escalation of geopolitical competition, and about the persistent absence of a legally binding instrument preventing an armed race in outer space.
Libya categorically rejected any attempt to weaponize outer space, including the placement of weapons in outer space, stressing that outer space should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Libya called for strengthening of the TCBMs, implementation of existing legally binding instruments, development of new ones, and equitable access to space technologies for all states, particularly developing countries, without discrimination.
🇳🇿 New Zealand · on behalf of Khan's group
New Zealand, on behalf of Khan's group, expressed concern over civilian suffering caused by armed conflict, noting that conventional weapons are destroying lives and essential services and that explosive remnants of war prevent communities from returning home, and citing the Cluster Munition Monitor figure of more than 1,000 people killed or injured in 2025.
New Zealand, on behalf of Khan's group, urged states parties to fully implement their obligations under the Anti Personnel Mine Band Convention, the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, called for universal adherence, and said recent withdrawals from humanitarian disarmament treaties risk weakening their achievements.
ASEAN
ASEAN expressed concern about the illicit trade, diversions, and misuse of conventional weapons, which it said fuels conflicts, violence, and instability.
ASEAN recognized the legitimate right and authority of sovereign nations to acquire and manage their conventional inventories and to use conventional weapons to maintain international security and defend territorial integrity.
European Union · on behalf of European Union and its member states
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its member states, expressed concern over massive contamination from antipersonal mines and explosive remnants of war in what it called Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, and urged Russia to adhere to its international legal obligations, including international humanitarian law and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
European Union stated that Russia must fully comply with international humanitarian law, that those responsible for serious violations must be held accountable, and that the EU will continue to support surveying, clearing and disposing of mines and explosive remnants of war in Ukraine, along with risk education and victim assistance.
🇷🇺 Russian Federation
Russian Federation stated that Russian initiatives on space security aim at launching work on an international legally binding instrument prohibiting the placement of any kind of weapons in space and the use or threat of force against space objects, which it said confirmed its intention not to allow an arms race in space.
Russian Federation called for member states to give the proper response to what it called the aggressive military space ambitions of the United States, and said only coordinated action by the international community could stop the arms race in space.
Russian Federation stated that all Russian activity in space, including that related to Cosmos 2612, was purely peaceful and in line with its international obligations, and urged the US to support the Russian draft resolution being presented in the fourth committee of the General Assembly.
Russian Federation stated that the Russian Armed Forces act in accordance with international humanitarian law on the use of mines, that Russia fulfils its obligations under Protocol 2 and Protocol 5, and that the goals of the special military operation would be fully met.
🇨🇳 China
China firmly opposed what it called the US Representative's continued smearing of China's outer space policy and activities, and stated that China is committed to the peaceful use of outer space, opposes arms races and weaponization in outer space, and will never participate in an arms race there.
China stated that the US defines outer space as a war fighting domain, has announced on-orbit space control weapons and the Golden Dome Anti Missile Program, and has long blocked negotiations on a legal instrument, in what it described as weaponization and militarization of outer space.
🇮🇱 Israel
Israel said that during Operation Roar Lion and the United States Operation Epic Fury, Israel and the United States acted jointly, in full accordance with international law, to eliminate what it called Iran's unlawful military capabilities, including ballistic missile manufacturing facilities and IRGC space facilities.
🇱🇹 Lithuania
Lithuania emphasized that the Russian Federation was not in a position to lecture on withdrawals from a Convention to which it was not a party, citing what it called Russia's deliberate targeting of civilians and extensive and indiscriminate use of cluster munitions and mines in Ukraine.
Lithuania stated that Lithuania's decisions on the Ottawa and Oslo conventions followed broad consultations domestically and with partners, were taken in full transparency and in full accordance with the conventions' provisions, and that it continued to value their humanitarian character.
Each line is checked against the transcript before it is shown and plays the moment it comes from. The transcript is the record.