Sixth Committee, 22nd plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session
Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives - Item 82 (A/81/209)
Expulsion of aliens - Item 80
Agenda items · 281st session
Item 82
Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives
Item 80
Expulsion of aliens
Source: United Nations (un.org, igov.un.org)
Rights of reply
10 replies by 7 delegations
🇺🇸 United States, 🇪🇨 Ecuador, 🇲🇽 Mexico, European Union, 🇧🇭 Bahrain, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran, 🇷🇺 Russian Federation
🇺🇸 United StatesFirst replyin response to Islamic Republic of Iran
sir. Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. The United States does not intend to engage in back and forth with regard to politicized accusations, but we do feel that it is necessary to address certain comments, namely the baseless criticism that we heard from the delegation from Iran. Iran's conduct has been abhorrent when it comes to the safety and protection of diplomats. In the past two years, Iran has plotted and conducted indiscriminate attacks against civilians and diplomatic personnel. Including using its own diplomatic facilities to engage in terror operations, has sought to assassinate former U.S. diplomatic personnel, and plotted terrorist attacks against Israeli embassies. In the context of armed conflict, Iran has launched multiple attacks on Middle East based U.S. diplomatic facilities. In contrast, U.S. military operations during Operation Epic Fury were narrowly directed against specific Iranian regime capabilities to defend U.S. personnel. and basis in the region against ongoing threats to US personnel, our allies, and international stability. I thank you, Madam Chair.
🇪🇨 EcuadorFirst replyin response to Mexico
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Delegation of Ecuador is exercising its right of reply following the comments made by the Delegation of Mexico. On the occurrences in Quito in April 2024. The government of Ecuador rejects the unilateral characterization of this incident that cannot be presented in an isolated way or discopled from the exceptional circumstances that preceded what happened. The government of Mexico sought to provide diplomatic asylum to an Ecuadorian citizen, condemned, sentenced to corruption. They did this despite the diplomatic efforts undertaken by Ecuador and the official information provided to them in a timely manner on his legal situation. This dispute is being submitted to the ICJ. Ecuador appeared before this high level tribunal, and its practice our position in good faith and transparency will continue to defend it through the mechanisms provided for under international law. Madam Chair, Ecuador, recognising the historic importance of its relations with Mexico. Stands ready to find a realistic uh solution to this dispute by way of serious and constructive dialogue based on mutual respect and recognizing the legitimate concerns of both parties. This availability does not involve renouncing on our principles, the defence of the rule of law or the imperative of combating corruption and impunity. On the contrary, expressing the political willingness of the Ecuadorian government to re establish causes of understanding and to rebuild a bilateral relationship that responds to the ongoing interests of both of our peoples. Thank you very much.
🇲🇽 MexicoFirst reply
Thank you, Madam Chair. On the illegal incursion of Ecuadorian authorities into the Mexican embassy in Ecuador on the fifth of April twenty twenty four, Mexico reiterates that there was no authorization whatsoever for entering our diplomatic premises. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is clear. And I quote premises of location are inviolable. State agents of the receiving state cannot enter them without the consent of the head of mission. Videos of this incursion are very clear. The head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressly denied this entry into the embassy. Mexico opted for the um legal route, taking the case to the International Court of Justice. And it's important to clarify that Ecuador. Committed before the court unilaterally to complying with the request for provisional measures, the ones requested by Mexico. The court recognized this unilateral commitment as legally binding, and that's why Mexico hopes that Ecuador will adhere to this obligation. Madam Chair, as we have mentioned, and the delegation of Bangladesh just mentioned this also. And like the ICJ has also said, these are currently pending before the International Court of Justice. Subdue D say Mexico expressed um its bodies to the um this uh high level UN legal authority, including the region, reasons why my country did not comply with um obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as well as other international obligations in terms of asylum, international cooperation and non interference. Thank you very much.
European UnionFirst replyin response to Ukraine
sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm on behalf of the European Union and its member states, I'm taking the floor to respond to some off-topic and unfounded allegations from the Russian fligation concerning some restrictive measures adopted by the EU in response to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, which constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter and must be stopped. The measures referred to were adopted by the Council of European Union on 23 October 2025, and they were adopted to defend the security interest of the EU and its member states. They seek to prevent members of the staff of the Russian diplomatic admissions and consular posts to possibly exploit the freedom of movement within the European Union and its member states, and to try really freely, travel freely to EU Member States where they are not accredited to carry out hostile intelligence activities. The existence of such activities that supports Russia's aggression against Ukraine, including espionage and the spreading of disinformation, is clearly established. In order to curb such practices, the persons concerned must notify the new member states concerned at least 24 hours before entering its territory, and a new member state may impose an authorization requirement on travel to or transit through its territory. I'd like to stress that these measures are consistent with the rights and obligation of member states under the two Vienna Conventions. They do not limit or restrict the rights enjoyed by members of the staff of the Russian diplomatic missions or consular posts under those two conventions in the EU member state of accreditation. In particular, they are without prejudice to the right to free movement and travel within the territory of the EU Member State of accreditation. They are also without prejudice to the right to unhindered passage through the territories of EU member states for members of the staff. Proceeding to take up or to return to their post or when returning to their own country. Moreover, every national authorization requirement is without prejudice to the obligation of member states under international law, has host countries to international and governmental organizations, and to conferences convened by or under the auspices of the United Nations. It does not apply to travel for participation in conferences and specialized agencies. It also does not apply to travel staff proceeding to take up or to return to their post or when returning to their own country. Marancheras, we have read in the report and we have heard in the room several episodes of attacks against diplomatic missions and representatives. We fail to see the relevance of the allegation of the Russian Federation, which seems to complain about the fact that members of its diplomatic corps cannot benefit from the freedom of movement within EU member states, a prerogative that the EU and EU member states give to their own citizens. If we stay on the topic of today's discussion, I would like to close by recalling that European Union leaders have strongly condemned Russia's increasingly aggressive, reckless and irresponsible behavior toward EU Member States, including threats against European diplomatic presence in Ukraine. Thank you.
🇧🇭 BahrainFirst reply
Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of the GCC member states, that's Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, as well as my own country, Bahrain, we would like to respond to what we heard from one state. Resolution 2817, a Security Council resolution. Of 2026 was co-sponsored by 136 member states. This resolution condemned the attacks which states in the region were subjected to. The resolution also called for an immediate end to these attacks, which constitute a violation of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security. Furthermore, there was a reference made to To uh Human Rights Council resolution 61 stroke one of March 2026. What we said today is also rooted in various UN resolutions. There is no need to try to manipulate reality. I thank you.
🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of IranFirst replyin response to United States
Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the unfounded statement of the United States delegation, I have to mention that while we categorically reject their baseless statement, we also have no interest in exchanging reply with uh a delegation who is representing uh a country that has killed thousands of our people just in a couple of months. And including one hundred and sixty-eight uh school children and teachers, including Makon Nasiri, whose whose remains were never found because of the United States devastating attack on elementary school. But uh while rejecting their statement, I have to mention that uh the delegation of US uh characterized our statement as uh criticism of US. It was not a criticism of US, it was a condemnation of the heinous attacks of the United States against my country, not just a criticism. And he referred to the so-called epic fury. I have to correct that this is this was an actually an epic failure uh at display uh as the world see saw that um my country was subjected to an aggression called Epic Failure, which resulted, unfortunately, in killing of our children children and women and our civilians. But at the end of the day, the world saw that we stood strong and defended our country against the aggressor. the United States uh has time and again Confessed that they armed terrorist groups so as to pursue the so-called regime change policy in my country. These are evidenced by the words that their officials have uttered and also in fact. And the United States is actively aiding and assisting the Israeli regime in committing genocide in Palestine. They should be responsible for this. And since 1946, there is no year in which the United States was not engaged in aggression against countries and regions in different parts of the world. So we believe the United States is the last one that uh that uh could allow itself to preach international law. In relation to another statement by a delegation, I have to mention that international law cannot be read from the middle. The events are clear. Iran was subjected to aggression. Certain countries facilitated that aggression, unfortunately. And Iran exercised its inherent right to self defense in response. And these responses these responses were conducted in full accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. Therefore, we reject any allegation 11 against my country, including those mentioned today. And any narrative that disregards the two facts while condemning the third is fundamentally flawed. The involvement of certain states in the region in the aggression against my country is not just a fact that we are uh touching upon, but it this has been acknowledged time and again by the United States officials. And if needed, I can uh provide a comprehensive list of quotations from the US officials that thanked those states for assisting the aggressor in killing our children and women. As for the um resolution twenty eight seventeen, I have to uh mention that we have consistently maintained, including in the sixth committee. That the Security Council is neither above law nor vested with unlimited authority. Under Article 24, subparagraph two of the United Nations Charter, the Council is expressly required to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Foremost among these principles is the prohibition of the threat or use of force and prohibition of aggression. Accordingly, a Security Council acting in accordance with its charter responsibility must uphold this fundamental prohibition. Unequivocally reject acts of aggression against Iran and refrain from normalizing or disregarding violations, these peremptory violations of this peremptory norm of international law. Where the Council instead provides an output that overlooks acts of aggression against my country, obscure the responsibility of aggressors, and attempt to shift blame to the estate subjected to the unlawful force, its credibility is tarnished, while any such output effectively runs counter to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Indeed, Article 3, subparagraph F of General Assembly Resolution 3314, expressly identified as an act of aggression the action of a state in allowing its territory to be at the disposal of another state for perpetration of aggression against a third state. Such conduct engages international responsibility under law of state responsibility. The principle of ex inuria just non erritur, that no legal right can arise from wrong, applies both to those who perpetrate aggression and those who facilitate it. Those who facilitate aggression cannot subsequently invoke a fundamentally flawed Security Council output as a shield against the consequences of their own wrongful act, nor can they transform their participation in the aggression into a lawful entitlement from protecting trying to protect themselves from self defenses of the victim. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Iran categorically rejects Security Council Resolution 2817 as a fundamentally flawed, legally indefensible, and reconcilable with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. By disregarding the underlying act of aggression, obscuring the responsibility of those who facilitated this aggression, the said so called resolution turns the fundamental logic of the charter on its head. This double standard ultra virus act should be rejected. I thank you.
🇷🇺 Russian FederationFirst reply
Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, to be perfectly frank, I don't want to comment the words uttered by my respected colleague from the EU. I think they don't deserve our attention. Nonetheless, I would like to draw your attention to the following. First, the EU representative, aside from Empty and absolutely pat pro forma political accusations. He has nothing to say aside from that. But that's not what I actually wanted to draw your attention to. Since we've started talking about the EU's sanctions, if my mem memory serves me well, very recently, the representative of the EU, who is also in charge of sanctions, he admitted, in fact, that there are some difficulties they've encountered. on the implementation of these sanctions because they are illegal of sorts, that's the first thing. And second, because they are a violation of international law. And here I'd like to put a full stop. I thank you.
🇪🇨 EcuadorSecond replyin response to Mexico
Gracias, señora Presidenta. Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation is exercising its right to reply for the second time following the insistence of the delegation of Mexico to present this dispute from an exclusively unilateral perspective. No state can give themselves the faculty to determine on their own what norms international law must must be observed and which can be discarded. The principles of sovereign equality, non interference, and good faith. Compel all states on an equal footing and must be comprehensively implemented, not selectively. Mexico is only pointing to Ecuador while omitting any reference to their own conduct of the decisions that led to this dispute. It's not possible to invoke diplomatic prerogatives and at the same time to disregard the limits and responsibilities that are coupled with these, nor is it the role of a foreign country to delegitimise the firm decisions adopted by competent legal bodies of another state. Madam Chair. It is necessary to clarify that the International Court of Justice rejected unanimously the provisional measures requested by Mexico against Ecuador on the 23rd of May 2024. The court supported the Ecuadorian position determining that there was no risk or urgence. Validating the commitments and um formal um offers made by the Ecuadorian states to safeguard diplomatic spaces and archives in Quito, confirming that security was fully guaranteed. Ecuador will continue to defend its rights through the corresponding institutional means and will keep the door open to dialogue that enables us to overcome this dispute and to rebuild on firm foundations the relationship between our two countries. Thank you very much.
🇲🇽 MexicoSecond replyin response to Ecuador
sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add, in response to the statement made by Ecuador and the good faith of relations between both countries, as the ICJ has already stated, there is no more fundamental prerequisite to rebuild relationships between countries than in viability of embassies. Mexico agrees that inviolity is a cornerstone of diplomatic relations, and that's why we believe that there is no justification whatsoever for not complying with this obligation. Mexico will continue to ensure compliance with international law. Thank you very much.
🇧🇭 BahrainSecond reply
madam. Sorry, Madam Chair, for uh uh requesting to take the floor for a second time in order to respond to the statement by one of the countries. We just recalled that the realities are clear. The international uh position and the international community's position is clear. Security Council Resolution 2817 clearly condemned that was co-sponsored by 136 states. It condemned the attacks against our the countries in our region and called for its immediate cessation. Any attempts to manipulate these realities would not change what was clearly stated by the Security Council. Thank you, Madam Chair.
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 timeIslamic Republic of Iran (9.5%) · Mexico (8%) · Chair (7.1%) + 27 more · Unattributed (0%)
Sixth Committee, 22nd meeting of the 81st session. Agenda items taken up: “Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives - Item 82 (A/81/209)”; item 80, “Expulsion of aliens”. 28 speakers were heard, representing 27 delegations. Rights of reply were exercised 10 times.
Rights of reply · 10
🇺🇸 United StatesFIRST REPLY · in response to Islamic Republic of Iran
United States stated that Iran's conduct on the safety and protection of diplomats had been abhorrent, citing what it called plots and attacks by Iran against civilians and diplomatic personnel, including attacks on Middle East based U.S. diplomatic facilities.
🇪🇨 EcuadorFIRST REPLY · in response to Mexico
Ecuador rejected what it called a unilateral characterization of the April 2024 incident in Quito, saying it could not be presented in isolation from the exceptional circumstances that preceded it.
Ecuador stated that the dispute is being submitted to the ICJ, where Ecuador will defend its position in good faith and transparency through the mechanisms provided for under international law.
Ecuador stated that Ecuador stands ready to find a realistic solution through serious and constructive dialogue based on mutual respect, without renouncing its principles, the defence of the rule of law or the imperative of combating corruption and impunity.
🇲🇽 MexicoFIRST REPLY
Mexico reiterated that there was no authorization for Ecuadorian authorities to enter the Mexican embassy on the fifth of April 2024, citing Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and that the case is pending before the International Court of Justice.
European UnionFIRST REPLY · in response to Ukraine
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its member states, stated that restrictive measures adopted on 23 October 2025 respond to what it called Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, and are consistent with the two Vienna Conventions and do not restrict the rights of Russian diplomatic and consular staff in their member state of accreditation.
🇧🇭 BahrainFIRST REPLY
“Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of the GCC member states, that's Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, as well as my own country, Bahrain, we would like to respond to what we heard from one state. Resolution 2817, a Security Council resolution. Of 2026 was co-sponsored by 136 member states. This …”
🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of IranFIRST REPLY · in response to United States
Islamic Republic of Iran categorically rejected Security Council Resolution 2817 as fundamentally flawed, legally indefensible and irreconcilable with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
🇷🇺 Russian FederationFIRST REPLY
“Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, to be perfectly frank, I don't want to comment the words uttered by my respected colleague from the EU. I think they don't deserve our attention. Nonetheless, I would like to draw your attention to the following. First, the EU representative, aside from Empty and absolutely pat pro for…”
🇪🇨 EcuadorSECOND REPLY · in response to Mexico
“Gracias, señora Presidenta. Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation is exercising its right to reply for the second time following the insistence of the delegation of Mexico to present this dispute from an exclusively unilateral perspective. No state can give themselves the faculty to determine on their own what norms in…”
🇲🇽 MexicoSECOND REPLY · in response to Ecuador
“sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add, in response to the statement made by Ecuador and the good faith of relations between both countries, as the ICJ has already stated, there is no more fundamental prerequisite to rebuild relationships between countries than in viability of embassies. Mexico agrees that inviolity …”
🇧🇭 BahrainSECOND REPLY
“madam. Sorry, Madam Chair, for uh uh requesting to take the floor for a second time in order to respond to the statement by one of the countries. We just recalled that the realities are clear. The international uh position and the international community's position is clear. Security Council Resolution 2817 clearly con…”
Points of disagreement
Islamic Republic of Iran condemned what it called heinous attacks by the Israeli regime and the United States on diplomatic and consular premises, and emphasized the need for full accountability under international law.
Israel rejected what it called the unfounded and politically motivated accusation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran in its submission to the Secretary-General's report, stating that the Iranian regime actively sponsors terrorist activities targeting Israeli diplomatic and consular personnel.
Kuwait reiterated its condemnation in the strongest term possible of what it called the Iranian attack on the US Embassy premises in Kuwait using drones in March of 2026, describing it as a violation of Kuwait's sovereignty and of the inviolability of the premises.
Key points
Bangladesh stressed that the United Nations internal justice system is the only court available to its personnel, given the organization's immunity before national courts, and that a fair, accessible and timely system matters to Bangladeshi staff, consultants and volunteers serving the organization.
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its member states, emphasized that acts of violence against diplomatic and consular missions and representatives can never be justified, and urged states to observe, implement and enforce all applicable rules of international law, including the inviolability of the diplomatic agent under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Bahrain, on behalf of GCC member states, stated that the serious challenge today was no longer the lack of legal frameworks and rules but the weakness of enforcement mechanisms and the absence of effective accountability to ensure compliance and prevent recurrence of incidents threatening diplomatic and consular missions.
Statement by statement · 27 speakers
🇲🇽 Mexico
Mexico expressed concern about the impact of the UN80 initiative on staff, causing uncertainty, anxiety and stress, and requested the Secretary-General to strengthen communication channels and transparency of administrative processes.
Mexico urged the organization to strike an adequate balance between privileges and immunities under the Convention and staff rights and effective access to justice, and stressed the need to institutionalize and strengthen dispute settlement services for non permanent staff.
Mexico proposed that states share good practices with the Secretary-General on applying the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations, so that training materials for local authorities could be developed.
Mexico reiterated that there was no authorization for Ecuadorian authorities to enter the Mexican embassy on the fifth of April 2024, citing Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and that the case is pending before the International Court of Justice.
🇬🇷 Greece
Greece emphasized that respect for the principles of equality, transparency, the rule of law and due process was, in its view, of fundamental importance in an effective and efficient system of administration of justice for staff and affiliate personnel.
Greece noted that the Secretary-General's report highlighted the added value of accessible informal resolution, including mediation, and that gaps remained for affiliate personnel, who lacked knowledge of contractual rights and feared using existing mechanisms.
🇷🇴 Romania
Romania stressed the importance of an independent, transparent, professional, and adequately resourced system of administration of justice, and said institutional efficiency and effective legal protection should be pursued as mutually reinforcing objectives.
Romania noted that new applications to the United Nations Dispute Tribunal increased sharply in 2025 and that the year-end pending caseload rose similarly, which it said brings into focus the need for effective case management with sufficient judicial and registry capacity.
Romania reaffirmed its commitment to a balanced, accountable, and properly resourced system of administration of justice, and encouraged practical follow-up centered on legally sound administrative decisions, effective voluntary settlement, timely adjudication, and adequate support for both pillars of the system.
🇿🇲 Zambia
Zambia stressed the great importance Zambia attaches to the effective functioning of the United Nations internal justice system, and recognized that an effective, impartial and independent system of justice is central to maintaining the credibility of the United Nations.
Zambia supported the stakeholders' position that the Disputes Tribunal and the UN Appeals Tribunal should encourage litigants to use existing mediation services, saying mediation offers numerous benefits and can restore relations.
🇧🇩 Bangladesh · on behalf of non-aligned movement
Bangladesh stressed that the United Nations internal justice system is the only court available to its personnel, given the organization's immunity before national courts, and that a fair, accessible and timely system matters to Bangladeshi staff, consultants and volunteers serving the organization.
Bangladesh called for timely filling of judicial vacancies to safeguard tribunal independence, and encouraged the Secretary-General to treat reinstatement and compensation as remedies governed by the rule of law and due process.
Bangladesh welcomed progress in giving non-staff personnel access to the Ombudsman services, and encouraged further work on fair, affordable and effective mechanisms for resolving their disputes.
Bangladesh expressed concern over the finding that racism remains an issue in the United Nations workplace, and stated that retaliation against those who report misconduct is itself misconduct.
🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran · on behalf of NAM
Islamic Republic of Iran condemned what it called heinous attacks by the Israeli regime and the United States on diplomatic and consular premises, and emphasized the need for full accountability under international law.
Islamic Republic of Iran rejected allegations leveled against Iran and underlined that the mechanism under General Assembly Resolution 79/124 must not be misused to obscure responsibility for acts of aggression.
Islamic Republic of Iran stated that Iran remains committed to its obligations and preserves conditions for diplomatic representatives to perform their duties, while underlining their obligation to respect domestic laws and refrain from interfering in internal affairs.
Islamic Republic of Iran categorically rejected Security Council Resolution 2817 as fundamentally flawed, legally indefensible and irreconcilable with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
European Union · on behalf of European Union and its member states
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its member states, emphasized that acts of violence against diplomatic and consular missions and representatives can never be justified, and urged states to observe, implement and enforce all applicable rules of international law, including the inviolability of the diplomatic agent under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its member states, called for continuous risk assessment, quick and thorough investigation and prosecution of attacks, and cooperation between sending and receiving states, so that perpetrators are held accountable.
European Union, on behalf of European Union and its member states, stated that restrictive measures adopted on 23 October 2025 respond to what it called Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, and are consistent with the two Vienna Conventions and do not restrict the rights of Russian diplomatic and consular staff in their member state of accreditation.
🇧🇭 Bahrain · on behalf of GCC member states
Bahrain, on behalf of GCC member states, stated that the serious challenge today was no longer the lack of legal frameworks and rules but the weakness of enforcement mechanisms and the absence of effective accountability to ensure compliance and prevent recurrence of incidents threatening diplomatic and consular missions.
Bahrain, on behalf of GCC member states, reaffirmed the sovereign right of GCC states, as guaranteed under international law and affirmed in Resolution 2817, to take all necessary measures to protect their territories, citizens, residents, and diplomatic and consular missions.
🇫🇮 Finland · on behalf of five Nordic countries
Finland, on behalf of five Nordic countries, expressed concern that diplomatic and consular agents and premises continue to fall victim to attacks in receiving states, despite the general recognition of the special duty to protect them.
Finland, on behalf of five Nordic countries, called for all states that have not yet done so to become parties to the relevant international legal instruments, noting that no new ratifications have taken place since the Secretary-General's previous report two years ago.
Finland, on behalf of five Nordic countries, condemned all acts of violence against diplomatic and consular missions and representatives in the strongest possible terms, and stressed that such attacks can never be justified and that perpetrators must be held accountable.
🇵🇹 Portugal
Portugal welcomed this year's report by the Secretary-General on the protection, security, and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, and appreciated the Secretary-General's continuous efforts, including the circular note reminding states to report serious violations.
Portugal called for all member states to foster their efforts so that international law and its principles prevail and diplomatic and consular missions and representatives are safeguarded and able to carry out their functions.
🇺🇸 United States
United States called for all host governments to fulfill their duty under international law by taking all appropriate steps to protect the premises of a diplomatic or consular mission against any intrusion or damage.
United States stated that Iran's conduct on the safety and protection of diplomats had been abhorrent, citing what it called plots and attacks by Iran against civilians and diplomatic personnel, including attacks on Middle East based U.S. diplomatic facilities.
🇨🇳 China
China expressed concern over illegal and criminal incidents targeting diplomatic and consular missions and their representatives, which it said have continued to occur frequently in recent years, including harassment, threats and intimidation, and condemned such acts.
China proposed that protection obligations be actively fulfilled under the Vienna Conventions, that post-incident accountability and punishment be improved, and that mutual respect and responsible cooperation be upheld between receiving and sending states.
China stated that China has consistently fulfilled its obligations under the Vienna Conventions, enacted domestic legislation, deployed armed police personnel to protect mission premises, and stands ready to strengthen communication and exchange with all parties.
🇸🇻 El Salvador
El Salvador reaffirmed its commitment to fulfilling its international obligations, especially those arising from the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, respect for which it called a responsibility of states and an indispensable condition for mutual trust.
El Salvador noted that El Salvador had created a monitoring center to strengthen oversight of its diplomatic and consular representations, sought support from competent local authorities, and that no serious violations against missions and representatives in its territory were reported during the reporting period.
El Salvador highlighted a permanent induction program for personnel assigned abroad, including training on the Vienna Conventions, and reaffirmed willingness to keep strengthening mechanisms for prevention, monitoring and institutional coordination.
🇳🇱 Kingdom of the Netherlands
Kingdom of the Netherlands noted that, as shown in the Secretary-General's report A 8129, breaches of international diplomatic and consular law persist and violent incidents and attacks involving diplomatic and consular staff and premises continue to occur.
Kingdom of the Netherlands stated that in the Netherlands the National Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism and Security advises local authorities on specific security measures in case of a threat to or breach of a diplomatic or consular mission, and that it was interested in understanding how this works in other countries.
🇵🇭 Philippines
Philippines reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of inviolability and immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and relevant instruments of international law, which must be respected at all times regardless of political differences or the state of bilateral relations.
Philippines expressed concern about incidents reported by states involving attacks against diplomatic premises and personnel, and stressed that receiving states' obligations to protect missions and diplomatic agents must be upheld consistently.
🇮🇳 India
India stressed that the protection of diplomatic and consular missions and their representatives is essential, and that under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Council Relations the receiving state must protect mission premises and diplomatic agents and respect privileges and immunities.
India expressed concern at the scale and diversity of incidents documented in the report, and stated that states must fulfil their obligations to prevent such acts and respond when they occur.
India welcomed information provided by several states on investigations, prosecutions and compensations, and good practices in the views submitted pursuant to paragraph 13, while stating that accountability is indispensable to effective protection.
🇮🇱 Israel
Israel emphasized that the protection and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and personnel is a fundamental obligation under international law, citing the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Israel rejected what it called the unfounded and politically motivated accusation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran in its submission to the Secretary-General's report, stating that the Iranian regime actively sponsors terrorist activities targeting Israeli diplomatic and consular personnel.
🇮🇩 Indonesia
Indonesia expressed concern that more states have reported violations in recent years, calling attacks on diplomats, vandalism against diplomatic and consular missions, and unlawful use of drones most alarming.
Indonesia stressed three points: implementing international law nationally, including the 1961 and 1963 Vienna Conventions; addressing new threats including in the digital space; and resolving disputes only by peaceful means.
🇮🇶 Iraq
Iraq stressed the need to protect diplomatic and consular missions and provide them a safe environment to carry out their mandates, noting that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations should be respected and fully implemented by host states.
🇧🇷 Brazil
Brazil stressed that the challenge is not the absence of legal norms but ensuring respect for them under all circumstances, and that the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises, archives, documents and official communications is a cornerstone of the Vienna Conventions system.
Brazil stated that diplomatic and consular communications, archives and documents enjoy absolute inviolability under the Vienna Conventions both offline and online, despite technological change.
Brazil recalled that diplomatic law provides its own remedies for abuses as a self-contained regime, and that no alleged abuse may justify violating immunities, particularly the inviolability of protected persons and premises.
🇻🇳 Viet Nam
Viet Nam unequivocally condemned all acts of violence, intrusion, vandalism, intimidation, and harassment directed against diplomatic and consular missions and their personnel, including those perpetrated by private individuals and organized groups.
Viet Nam emphasized the importance of practical and preventive measures, including regular risk assessments, effective communication channels and contingency plans, and called for prompt, thorough and impartial investigations; it also supported greater international cooperation, including capacity building for states with limited resources.
🇧🇪 Belgium · on behalf of EU and its member states
Belgium, on behalf of EU and its member states, emphasized that the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and their personnel is a necessary prerequisite for effective exercise of diplomatic and consular functions, and that the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963 establish a clear legal framework.
Belgium, on behalf of EU and its member states, urged all states that have not yet done so to become parties to the Vienna Conventions, and reiterated the importance of their full implementation.
Belgium, on behalf of EU and its member states, stated that, based on its experience as a host state, protection requires close cooperation between federal authorities, local authorities, intelligence, police and security services, ongoing dialogue with missions and international organizations, prevention, swift communication and emergency preparation, and called for greater international cooperation and exchange of best practices.
🇰🇼 Kuwait
Kuwait reiterated its condemnation in the strongest term possible of what it called the Iranian attack on the US Embassy premises in Kuwait using drones in March of 2026, describing it as a violation of Kuwait's sovereignty and of the inviolability of the premises.
Kuwait called for Iran to fully comply with UN Security Council Resolution 2817 of 2026 and to stop its attacks and threats against countries of the region, including through proxies; Kuwait reserved its right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Kuwait reiterated that receiving states have obligations under Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to protect mission premises, and that these obligations continue to prevail even when relations are cut off or in armed conflict.
🇱🇹 Lithuania
Lithuania reaffirmed the cardinal importance of the long-established and universally recognized principles of international law governing diplomatic and consular relations, as reflected in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and customary international law.
Lithuania expressed concern over conduct by third states that unlawfully interferes with diplomatic or consular relations, or jeopardizes the protection, security and safety of missions, premises and representatives; it said armed hostilities cannot justify attacks against such premises or personnel.
🇷🇺 Russian Federation
Russian Federation stated that in Sweden over 25 drone incidents against Russian missions had been registered over two years, and that the Republic of Moldova had denied the Russian mission diplomatic mail and refused the ambassador's letters of credence.
Russian Federation called for all states to fully uphold their obligations to ensure the security of foreign missions and their representatives in accordance with international law, and reminded that reciprocity remains the basic principle of diplomatic relations.
🇳🇦 Namibia
Namibia expressed concern at what it called the ongoing systematic attack against UNRWA, following the demolition of the UNRWA compound in East Jerusalem earlier this year by Israeli forces.
Namibia stressed that the most effective means of preventing both abuse of diplomatic privileges and immunities and violations of diplomatic principles was strict adherence to and respect for international law.
🇪🇨 Ecuador
Ecuador rejected what it called a unilateral characterization of the April 2024 incident in Quito, saying it could not be presented in isolation from the exceptional circumstances that preceded it.
Ecuador stated that the dispute is being submitted to the ICJ, where Ecuador will defend its position in good faith and transparency through the mechanisms provided for under international law.
Ecuador stated that Ecuador stands ready to find a realistic solution through serious and constructive dialogue based on mutual respect, without renouncing its principles, the defence of the rule of law or the imperative of combating corruption and impunity.
Each line is checked against the transcript before it is shown and plays the moment it comes from. The transcript is the record.