Joint Nordic Statement: Report of the International Law Commission Cluster III
Joint Nordic Statement delivered by Ms. Anna Pala Sverrisdottir, Deputy Director General,
Directorate for Legal and Executive Affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland
Eighty-first Session of the United Nations General Assembly: Sixth Committee
Agenda item 78: Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-sixth and seventy-seventh session:
Cluster III: Chapters IX (Non-legally binding international agreements), X (Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea), XI (Due diligence in international law) and XII (Compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts)
4 November 2026
Mme./Mr. Chair,
I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden – and my own country Iceland.
Regarding the topic of Non-legally binding international agreements, the Nordic countries would like to thank the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mathias Forteau, for his excellent work so far, and in particular for his third report, which serves to effectively guide the work forward.
The Nordic countries continue to view this topic as highly relevant in international practice. States and international organizations increasingly make use of a broad range of instruments that are not intended to constitute legally binding agreements. Guidance that helps to distinguish such instruments from treaties can therefore contribute to transparency, legal certainty and a common understanding of the applicable international law framework.
We are pleased to see the Commission reach the stage where draft conclusions 1 to 5, together with their commentaries, have been adopted. We also appreciate the efforts made to refine and streamline the draft conclusions in light of the views expressed by States in the Sixth Committee.
Concerning the purpose of the draft conclusions, the Nordic countries would like to continue supporting the non-prescriptive nature of the draft conclusions. Their value lies in enhancing legal certainty and providing practical guidance while preserving the flexibility that characterizes the negotiation and adoption of non-legally binding international agreements. We welcome the simplified formulation of conclusion 1 and the clarification provided regarding the purpose of the draft conclusions.
The Nordic countries also welcome conclusion 2, which appropriately recognizes the diversity of national and institutional practices relating to the drafting and adoption of non-legally binding international agreements.
Regarding conclusion 3 on the use of terms, the Nordic countries support the pragmatic approach to terminology. In our view, greater importance should be attached to the substance of an instrument and the intention of its participants than to its formal designation. We continue to stress that States and international organizations should remain free to use their own terminology, including the term “non-legally binding instrument”, which is widely used in practice. We welcome the commentary of the conclusion which highlights that the goal is to clarify the use of terminology for the present draft conclusions, not for all purposes.
The Nordic countries particularly welcome the emphasis placed in conclusions 4 and 5 on the intention of the participants. The intention to create, or not to create, legal rights and obligations is central to distinguishing treaties from non-legally binding international agreements. At the same time, we recognize that an overall assessment of all relevant circumstances may remain necessary in specific cases and therefore appreciate the balanced approach reflected in the draft conclusions and commentaries. We look forward with interest to the Commission's future work on the identification of the relevant indicators that may assist in establishing the intention of the participants where no express indication exists. In our view, any such indicators should be assessed holistically and should not be applied in a restrictive manner.
The Nordic countries are of the view that an express indication that an instrument is not legally binding should in principle be sufficient to identify such intention. In this regard, we wonder whether the qualification that such an indication is “normally sufficient” may give insufficient weight to a clear statement of intention by the participants. At the same time, the absence of an express indication should not be regarded as determinative of the nature of the agreement.
We look forward with great interest to the Special Rapporteur's fourth report. As the Commission proceeds with its work, the Nordic countries look forward to the examination of the possible legal implications of non-legally binding international agreements. In particular, we would welcome further clarification regarding their potential relevance in the identification and formation of customary international law and general principles of law, their possible interpretative role, and the implications of general principles and doctrines of international law, including good faith, acquiescence and estoppel. In our view, careful consideration of these questions, firmly grounded in State practice and jurisprudence, could provide valuable guidance to practitioners while preserving the fundamental distinction between treaties and non-legally binding international agreements. We also note with interest ongoing efforts in other international settings to collect and analyse relevant practice, which may provide a useful complement to the Commission’s work on this topic.
In closing, the Nordic countries would like to reiterate our appreciation for the work already done by Mr. Forteau and the ILC on this topic. The Nordic countries look forward to continuing to contribute to the discussions in the Sixth Committee and engaging further with the ILC on this important topic.
Mme/Mr. Chair,
I would now like to address the topic of prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea.
Let me commence by expressing our sincere appreciation to Special Rapporteur Mr. Louis Savadogo for his comprehensive work and his first report and draft articles, as well as to the members of the Working Group for their valuable efforts and contributions to advancing the Commission’s work. We also welcome the substantial and structured discussions taking place in the Commission, including the views expressed during the plenary debate on the draft articles.
The Nordics, as most other countries, are highly dependent on a secure global maritime domain, which is undermined by the continued high number of incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea. All States have an interest in protecting freedom of navigation and supporting maritime security. The Nordic Countries would also like to recall the central role of international law as a basis for the global maritime order, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out.
Turning to the draft articles, the Nordic Countries initially take note of draft article 9 on ships and aircraft entitled to seize on account of piracy or armed robbery at sea. According to paragraph 1 of this article, armed security personnel onboard merchant vessels have the right to seize pirate ships or aircraft, including the property, and to arrest the persons onboard. The Nordic Countries believe that this provision would require some further reflection. Article 107 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea limits seizure on account of piracy to warships, military aircraft or other government-service vessels clearly marked as such. To the extent the term armed security personnel is understood to include both uniformed military personnel and privately contracted armed security personnel onboard merchant vessels, it would seem that the provision would confer extensive powers to private persons. In our view individual self-defense under general criminal law principles is afforded to everyone, but the legal basis of the proposed draft article on the right to seize pirate ships and aircraft is unclear in this regard.
In paragraph 2 of draft article 9, ships of the coastal State and other ships clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect have a right to seize vessels suspected of armed robbery in internal waters, archipelagic waters or the territorial sea. The Nordic Countries believe that further reflection is needed on this provision. We are concerned that the paragraph without proper legal basis inappropriately limits the sovereignty of the coastal State within its own territory. The paragraph should also clarify that authorizations may only be granted by the coastal State.
We have also taken note of the discussions at the Commission and tend to agree with the conclusion that there could be a need to further distinguish between piracy and armed robbery at sea in the articles. Conflating the two offences could risk intrusion into the territorial sovereignty of States.
We would also like to commend draft article 3bis for encompassing the new form of pirate activity committed by or against autonomous or remotely operated ships or aircraft. The use of such vessels has become an important topic within maritime security, and we support having clear definitions on the matter.
Ensuring the safety of merchant vessels is essential for safeguarding open and secure sea lanes. Due to piracy and armed robbery, the shipping industry has unfortunately been forced to focus specifically on the protection of vessels and to rely on the services of private maritime security companies. These services give rise to a range of legal issues, such as coastal and port States’ regulation on arms, compatibility with the right of innocent passage and the use of force. We would encourage the Commission and the Special Rapporteur to elaborate their thoughts on these topics.
On behalf of the Nordic Countries, we look forward to continuing the cooperation with both the Commission and the Special Rapporteur.
Mme/Mr. Chair,
The Nordic countries would like to thank the International Law Commission and the Special Rapporteur, Penelope Ridings, for the comprehensive first report on the topic Due diligence in international law.
We welcome the Commission's decision to include this topic in its programme of work and commend the methodical approach adopted by the Special Rapporteur. As the report demonstrates, the concept of due diligence has long formed part of international law. Due diligence has appeared in a variety of legal contexts and has been reflected in State practice, treaty regimes and the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals.
One of the principal challenges of this topic is that due diligence has developed across a wide range of areas of international law and continues to do so. While this demonstrates the significance of the concept, it also raises the question whether common elements can be identified across different legal contexts.
The recent climate-related advisory opinions have made an important contribution to this discussion. In particular, they provide additional guidance regarding factors that may be relevant to the assessment of due diligence, including risk, foreseeability, available knowledge and State capacities. The Nordic countries welcome the Commission's consideration of these developments as part of its broader analysis of the topic.
The Nordic countries support the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to explore the various conceptions of due diligence articulated by States; the conception of due diligence as a standard of conduct attached to specific primary obligations, and as an independent obligation reflected in certain areas of international law. Considering the variations in terminology and conceptualization by States and scholars alike, we expect that the Commission’s consideration can assist in clarifying the understanding of due diligence as it applies in the international legal system.
We also encourage the Commission to continue examining the legal basis of due diligence, including whether and to what extent particular manifestations of due diligence reflect customary international law or general principles of law, as well as its relationship with the law of State responsibility.
The discussion on the application of international law in cyberspace further illustrates the practical relevance of this topic. UN Members have unequivocally reaffirmed the applicability of international law in cyberspace. In that vein, The Nordic countries note that due diligence has featured prominently in international discussions concerning responsible State behaviour in this domain. Developments in cyberspace demonstrate that questions relating to due diligence continue to arise in new factual and technological settings and underline the value of the Commission's work in bringing greater clarity to the concept. The Nordic countries recognise the relevance of due diligence in this context.
Finally, we support the Special Rapporteur's preliminary view that draft principles would constitute an appropriate final form for the topic. Principles identifying common elements of due diligence, while preserving the flexibility necessary for different legal contexts, could provide useful guidance to States and contribute to greater coherence in this area of international law. We also support the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to focus first on due diligence as a standard of conduct and propose draft principles on that aspect of due diligence, which allows time for further research and reflection on questions relating to the conception of due diligence as a possible stand-alone obligation.
We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Commission and the Special Rapporteur as work on this topic progresses.
Mme/Mr. Chair,
On the topic of Compensation for damage caused by an internationally wrongful act, which the International Law Commission at its seventy-fifth session decided to include in its long-term programme of work.
The Nordic countries wish to thank the Commission for selecting such a timely and highly relevant topic, and wish to express their appreciation to the Special Rapporteur, Mr Paparinskis, for his thorough and valuable work. His first report laid a solid foundation for a further development of the topic, mapping out central legal questions and bringing light to the already existing work and codification efforts related to compensation. We look forward to future discussions in this forum and to contributing to the work of the Commission on this subject. We support the approach of the special rapporteur with regards to waiting with any firm decision as to the final form of the Commission’s work.
The Nordic countries want to emphasize the strong position enjoyed by the articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts in the international legal system. As we have said before, we consider that the articles in general reflect customary international law. The continuous references to them by courts and scholarly writings strengthen their position. Hence, draft articles on compensation that build upon the articles on State responsibility would constitute a valuable addition to the legal framework on State responsibility.
Reparation, including compensation, is an important aspect of accountability and state responsibility. Establishing that an internationally wrongful act has occurred is indispensable, but accountability is generally not complete if those who have suffered harm are left without an avenue for redress.
We fully support the approach of the Special Rapporteur to treat Article 36 on compensation as a basic rule on the subject. We also consider that the Commission’s work may provide much needed guidance on the interrelationship between this basic rule and other rules within the regime of state responsibility. In this regard, we would encourage looking into the interrelationship between Articles 36 and 39, with regard to assessing the possible effect that an injured State’s contribution to injury might have on the determination of claims of compensation.
It would be useful if the Commission’s work could assess whether there is a possibility of set-off in international law as a means of enforcing claims of compensation, and whether there are particular rules governing priority between claims in international law that might affect, for instance, any resort to set-off.
Questions relating to the possible reduction of compensation based on equitable concerns have been raised by the Special Rapporteur and during the debate in the Commission. This is an important question to consider in the context of the Commission’s work on compensation. It raises complex issues in terms of both law and practice and would benefit from a thorough examination focused on the legal sources and not limited to one particular context, such as war reparations.
International law has seen quantum leaps both normatively and institutionally in addressing damage, losses and injury suffered by civilians and States after armed conflict. The United Nations Claims Commission (UNCC) established by the UN Security Council after the invasion and liberation of Kuwait in 1991 demonstrated creative new approaches notably to reduce the time factor in providing necessary support to the most vulnerable. Other mechanisms include the International Claims Commission for Ukraine established under the Convention adopted within the framework of the Council of Europe on 16 December 2025. The Nordic countries have been actively involved in the negotiations of this Convention.
The International Law Commission’s work on compensation offers an important opportunity to clarify, systematize and develop international law relevant to the obligation to make reparation for internationally wrongful acts. The Nordic countries attach great importance to this work and look forward to contributing to the Commission’s consideration of the topic.
Thank you.