The rule of law at the national and international levels - Item 84 - A/81/184 Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission - Item 75 - A/81/284, A/81/207
🇨🇳 China, 🇵🇸 State of Palestine, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran, 🇵🇭 Philippines, 🇮🇱 Israel
sir. Chair, in response to the statement made by the Philippines this morning, China re-exercised its right of supply. The UN is not the appropriate forum for discussing the South China Sea issue, however, China deems it necessary to respond firmly to the erroneous assertions raised. China's position on the South China Sea arbitration case is consistent and clear. The Philippines' unilateral initiation of the so called arbitration violates fundamental principles of international law such as state consent. and the Pacta sanct survivor and violated international law, including Enclos. The arbitral tribunal exceeded Its jurisdiction and rendered an award in disregard of the law. The award is illegal now and void. China neither accepts nor recognizes the award and opposes and rejects any claims or actions based on the award. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea are not affected by this award under any circumstances. There's no point in hyping up the 10th anniversary of the award. The only role this award has played is to serve as a tool for the Philippines to expand its territorial and maritime claims, exacerbate regional tensions, and become a stumbling block to China-Philippine relations and peace and stability in the region. On territorial and maritime issues, China does not accept any imposed solution to disputes and has consistently advocated resolving disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations and consultations with relevant parties based on respecting historical facts. China will continue to work with ASEAN countries to jointly safeguard peace and stability. And that's all trying to see. Thank you, Chair.
madam. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am taking the floor in response to the Orwillian statement delivered by the Israeli delegate on the rule of law and Israel's so-called commitment to the rule of law. We do live in a parallel world where there is international law and then there is a fictitious and mythical Israeli rule of law. In this mythical world of law, as exuberantly described by the Israeli delegate, genocidees and criminals dress up as victims, echo that they are the most humane of all, that they are the true law abiding, and that they are driven by the most noble of values of humanity, morality, legality, and democracy. A world that is a figment of Israeli imagination. But in the real world, the world of international law, however, Israel has never burdened, nor is a state committed to the rule of law. It is a state committed to genocides, war crimes and crimes against humanity, to aggression and mass killing. Israel is a state that is standing trial for genocide before the world's court, the same world cult that has stated in an authoritative advisory opinion that Israel is violating the basic fundamental of international law and the foundations of relations among nations. Israel is committing the most sustained campaign of child massacre in human history, killing over 21,000 children, and is listed on the UN list of shame of serial violators of children's rights. Israel oversees slaughterhouses where children, women and men are systematically raped and sexually assaulted, and is also listed in the UN list of shame of states responsible for patterns of rape or other forms of sexual violence in situations of armed conflict. The Israeli army, which the Israeli delegate described as strictly adhere to international law, is the leading engine of mass death and destruction in our region. The same region, the Israeli delegate attacked and called between coats an ocean of undemocratic values. The usual racist trope. But the irony is that the Israeli delegate represents an upper tide regime that is subjugating millions of people on the basis of faith, nationality, and color. Israel is an upper tide regime in the heart of the Middle East, a genocidal state in the heart of the Middle East, whose unchecked criminality has haunted the region and its people for years, bombing the countries of the region, stealing their lands, killing its children, and destroying every prospect of peace all to maintain its supremacy. Israel is the furthest from any democracy anyone can get. In Israel's mythical world, the more crimes it commits, the more confident its representatives feel to declare their non-existent commitment to the rule of law. The fact that the Israeli representative can come here to lecture the rest of the world while representing a state committing genocide is a demonstration of the impunity Israel enjoys. But the reality of Israel's criminality and oppression is stronger than their propaganda. The reality is that Israel is a settler colonial, ethnoctic project that is sustained by terror, that is sustained by illegal occupation, by racist and religious ideology of supremacy. It is sustained by racial segregation and upper tide, by colonization, by land theft and settlement building and expansion. It is sustained by settler terror, paid for and sponsored and sanctioned by the state. It is a project that is bent on exterminating the indigenous people of the land, erasing them from history and geography, and committing the most sadistic organized barbarism in modern history. A truly deranged vision of hell. This is Israel's commitment to the rule of law. Thank you.
sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am obliged to exercise our right of reply. And as we mentioned yesterday on 28 February 2026, my country was subjected to an unprovoked permitted aggression that claimed lives of thousands of our people, including women and children. The aggression against my country was facilitated through the territory of certain countries in the region, all while at the international plane, international law. Imposes an independent obligation upon every state not to allow their territories to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other states, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice in several important cases. More specifically, Article 3, subparagraph F of Annex to General Assembly Resolution 3314 expressly identified as an act of aggression the action of a state in allowing territory placed at another state's disposal to be used to perpetrate aggression against a third state. Likewise, aid and assistance to aggressors is not an act of neutrality. The legal consequences cannot be evaded. All such violations entail international responsibility. States that place their territory, aerospace, bases, or facilities at the disposal of aggressors cannot simply disclaim responsibility for their conduct. Iran, as a victim of a blatant aggression facilitated in the region, had every right to defend itself. And Iran's responses were in exercise of its inherit inherent right of self defense under Article fifty one of the UN Charter and in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. Iran, like always, remains committed to good neighborly good neighborliness, but good neighborliness cannot be a one sided commitment. We expect all states to translate this commitment to this principle into concrete conduct and thus refrain from any support of facilitation of aggression against Iran. As for the Strait of Hormos, over decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran as a responsible state has continuously upheld the freedom of navigation as well as the safety and security of maritime navigation and has actualized them in marine areas. This is an irrefutable fact. The Strait of Hormones has undergone a fundamental change of circumstances resulting from the aggression against my country. The aggressors use up the Strait of Hormones and the maritime space to commit attacks against Iran. And to supply military bases placed at their disposal in the region has turned the Strait of State of Hormos into a battlefield. Evidently, under the law of the sea, passage through such straits must have due respect for the sovereignty of the coastal estates of the strait in such a manner that passage does not threaten the security and sovereignty of those coastal estates. And I have to reiterate once again regarding the regime of passage through the Strait of Hormos, we emphasize our established legal position and that given Iran has not ratified the Ankh Loss, Iran considers itself bound only by those provisions that it considers part of customary international law. I thank you.
madam. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Philippines exercises its right of reply to the statement made by the delegation of China concerning the twenty sixteen South China Sea Arbitral Award. The Philippines rejects China's characterization of the arbitration and its COUT outcome. First, on state consent, by becoming parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, both the Philippines and China consented to its dispute settlement framework, including compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under Part 15. The Convention does not require separate consent to each arbitration instituted in accordance with its provisions, and China's non participation in the proceedings did not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction. Second, on jurisdiction. The tribunal carefully examined the scope of the disputes submitted to it, including China's declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS. The tribunal determined that the matters over which it exercised jurisdiction concerned the interpretation and application of the Convention, and it did not require it to decide questions of territorial sovereignty or delimit any maritime boundary. The tribunal thus acted within the jurisdiction conferred upon it by UNCLOS. Third, under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex 7, the award is final and binding on the parties, and China's continued rejection of the award has no bearing on its legal force. The award neither expanded Philippine territory nor created new maritime entitlements for us. Rather, it clarified the rights and obligations of the parties under UNCLOS, including the limits of maritime claims based on purported historic rights. As we mark the 10th anniversary of the war this year, we recall its resounding affirmation of UNCLOS and its dispute settlement mechanisms. Judicial decisions and arbitral awards rendered under the convention have significance beyond the parties to a particular dispute. By clarifying international law, they strengthen legal certainty, guide state conduct, and contribute to the peaceful and predictable governance of the ocean. Yet, notwithstanding the tribunal's findings overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines, serious incidents continue to occur in the South China Sea, including infringements upon Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction. These developments underscore the continuing importance of respect for international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. The ten years have not diminished the award's significance. The passage of time cannot extinguish rights under international law or relieve states of their treaty obligations. The Philippines remains committed to dialogue, diplomacy, and the peaceful settle of missed disputes. But dialogue must proceed on the basis of international law, including UNCLOS, and with full respect for legally binding decisions. The Philippines will continue to uphold the 2016 Arbital Award as an integral part of the international legal order governing the seas. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair China reiterates that the South China Sea Arbitral Award is illegal, null and void. A negative example of international maritime law and governance. First, the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction over the matters. The essence of the dispute concerns territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, therefore do not fall within the scope of the Anclause, since maritime delimitation was excluded from compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China's 2006 declaration made pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention. Moreover, China and the Philippines had reached a consensus to resolve relevant disputes through negotiations and consultations. Therefore, the arbitral tribunal simply had no jurisdiction over the matters in question. The Philippines claims the award clarified maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea. But isn't that precisely the issue that maritime delimitation is intended to resolve? Since questions of maritime delimitation had already been excluded from arbitration procedures by China's declaration. The tribunal's purported clarification of maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea constituted a clear overreach of its jurisdiction. How could the so-called award possibly be regarded as lawful and valid? Second, the so-called award seriously contravenes both the convention and general state practice. For example, the award misinterprets Article 121 of the Convention concerning the criteria for determining the status of islands. It arbitrarily concluded that none of the islands and reefs in the South China Sea are entitled to claim an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. If this standard were applied universally, many islands and reefs belonging to other countries would likewise be unable to generate maritime entitlements. The tribunal's conclusion is therefore fundamentally flawed and absurd. Furthermore, the award asserted that the EEZ regime has superseded historic rights. In reality, multiple provisions of the Convention itself refer to historic bays and historic titles, and nowhere does the convention negate historic rights. The UN Secretariat has also issued a memoranda on historic waters and studies on historic bays. In addition, many states maintain practices recognizing historic rights and traditional fishing rights. The award therefore seriously violates the convention, and departs markedly from customary international law. Under such circumstances, how could it possibly be regarded as lawful and valid? The South China Sea arbitration case was a political provocation disguised in legal garb. China's opposition to and non-acceptance of the arbitration case is not only aimed at safeguarding its own rights and interests, but also at upholding the international maritime order and international rule of law of the sea. China urges the Philippines to cease using multilateral platforms to hype up the issue, abandoned attempts to invoke the arbitrary arbitration case as a pretext for political maneuvering and return as soon as possible to the proper track of resolving differences through bilateral negotiations and consultations. China also cause on the Philippines to pragmatically manage and hide the disputes in the South China Sea. I think China and I see that Philippines would like to exercise its Red Rule politic.
Briefly, Madam Chair, the Philippines has listened carefully to China's invocation of state consent, Pacto Sun Servanda, and the integrity of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. These are principles to which the Philippines is also committed. Their authority, however, rests not merely in invocation, but in their faithful observance. China voluntarily became a party to UNCLOS and accepted its dispute settlement framework. The tribunal constituted constituted under the convention, examined its jurisdiction, and rendered an award that is final and binding on both parties. We invite China to re examine the award. The UNCLOS is the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. We invite China to reconsider their claims of Customary law and general law outside of the UNCLAS framework. A state cannot invoke the authority of a treaty to advance its rights while simultaneously rejecting the obligations arising from the same treaty. Nor can this agreement with an arbitral decision diminish its legal force and validity. The Philippines shares the commitment to peace, stability, and equitable maritime order, and these objectives are best served by consistent respect for international law, including the binding decisions rendered pursuant to it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah.
sir. In the interest of time, we will not stoop to the low level of those that basisly accuse us of heinous crimes in order to disguise their own blatant and systematic violations of international law and human rights. If the Palestinians have any complaints about the war in Gaza, they should feel free to forward them to Hamas. Hamas initiated the war in Gaza, and they are the one who must be held accountable for their actions. Thank you.
Um it is incredibly visible to listen to the Israeli delegate talk about their responsibility and whose responsibility it is for their own crimes that they are committing in in Gaza and in Palestine for over 80 years. Just in the morning they were talking about their commitment to the rule of law and their adherence to international law, and the International Court of Justice is very clear that Israel has violated international law, and just now the Israeli delegate, instead of taking responsibility for their violations, as stated by the International Court of Justice, of which they claim to respect, he is shifting blames. Israel is the illegal occupant. Israel is responsible for its crimes, and Israel should be held accountable for its crimes. And instead of checking themselves and taking responsibility for their crimes, they are absolving themselves of the international legal obligations that they claimed to respect earlier in the morning. Thank you. Yeah.
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.