Sixth Committee (Legal) — 80th session
Crimes against humanity (Agenda item 81)
- Authority:
Documentation
- — Draft decision "Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity"
Additional documents from previous sessions:
- — Report of the Sixth Committee (79th session)
- – Written summary of the deliberations during the two resumed sessions
- Oral report of the co-facilitators (2024 resumed session)
- ?+??+??— Report of the Secretary-General
- of the co-facilitators (2023 resumed session)
- , to be considered at the resumed seventy-seventh and seventy-eighth sessions
- — Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its seventy-second session, prepared by the Secretariat
- + + — Comments and observations received from Governments, international organizations and others, 2019
- — Topical summary of the discussion held in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its seventy-fourth session, prepared by the Secretariat
- received from Governments in 2015, 2016 and 2017
- received from Governments, international organizations and others, 2019
Summary of work
Background (source: )
At its seventy-fourth session, the General Assembly, under the item entitled “Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-first session”, took note of the draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity contained in chapter IV of the report of the Commission (), and decided to include in the provisional agenda of its seventy-fifth session an item entitled “Crimes against humanity” and to continue to examine the recommendation of the Commission contained in paragraph 42 of its report on the work of its seventy-first session (resolution ).
At its seventy-ninth session, the Assembly decided to convene a preparatory committee for the , to meet for two consecutive weeks, from 19 to 30 January 2026, and for four days, in 2027, at United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Assembly also decided to convene the Conference, to meet at United Nations Headquarters in New York for three consecutive weeks in 2028 and in 2029, unless otherwise agreed by the , to elaborate and conclude a legally binding instrument on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity (resolution ).
At the same session, the Assembly decided to convene a working group to meet for the entire first session of the to facilitate consultations on the draft articles, and to enable Governments to prepare formal proposals for amendments to the draft articles for consideration by the Conference to be included in the compiled text (resolution ).
Also at the same session, the Assembly decided that the should also discuss the organization and methods of work of the Conference, including the rules of procedure, with a view to making recommendations thereon, at its second session, to the Conference. The Assembly requested the Secretary-General to prepare proposals thereon for the consideration of the Preparatory Committee and decided that the Preparatory Committee should also prepare the compiled text for submission to the Conference and decide, at its first session, on the participation of stakeholders other than those non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council in accordance with Council resolution 1996/31. The Assembly decided that, upon completion of its mandate, the Preparatory Committee should report directly to the Conference (resolution ).
Also at its seventy-ninth session, the Assembly invited Governments to submit to the Secretary-General, no later than 30 April 2026, proposals for amendments to the draft articles for inclusion in the compiled text, and requested the Secretary-General to submit a proposed compiled text to the at its second session (resolution ).
At the same session, the Assembly decided that the and the should be open to all States Members of the United Nations and members of the specialized agencies, and requested the Secretary-General to invite those States to participate in the Conference (resolution ).
Also at the same session the Assembly decided that the Conference and the should be open to observers having received a standing invitation to participate in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly, on the understanding that they should participate in the Conference in accordance with the rights and privileges conferred upon them by the Assembly, and requested the Secretary-General to invite them to the Conference, and also to invite, as observers to the Conference, representatives of interested regional intergovernmental organizations and other interested international bodies (resolution ).
Also at the seventy-ninth session, the Assembly decided that attendance at the Conference and the as observers would also be opened to relevant non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council in accordance with Council resolution 1996/31 (resolution ).
The participation of relevant non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders meant attending formal meetings, receiving copies of the official documents, making their materials available to delegates and addressing the meetings, through a limited number of their representatives, as appropriate (resolution ).
Consideration at the eightieth session
The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 12th,13th, 14th and 38th meetings, from13 to 14 October and on 21 November 2025. (A/C.6/80/SR.12, 13, 14 and 38.)
Statements were made by the representatives of Cameroon (on behalf of the African Group), the European Union (also on behalf its member States (the candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia, as well as Armenia, Monaco and San Marino aligned themselves with the statement)), Portugal (on behalf of Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, the State of Palestine and Timor-Leste), Sweden (on behalf of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden), Canada (on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand (CANZ)), Costa Rica (on behalf of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Vanuatu and the European Union), Guinea-Bissau (on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries (CPLP)), Israel, Germany, France, Czechia, Slovenia, the Congo, Sierra Leone, Ireland, Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, India, Ethiopia, Poland, the Russian Federation, Egypt, Armenia, Chile, Morocco, Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, Indonesia, Switzerland, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, C?te d’Ivoire, Romania, Portugal, Myanmar, Jordan, Oman (on behalf of the Arab group), Senegal, Algeria, Togo, Austria, Singapore, Thailand, Guatemala, the Gambia, Malaysia, Zambia, Uruguay, Hungary, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Andorra, Türkiye, Eritrea, Bulgaria, China, the Maldives, South Africa, Bangladesh, Slovakia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, Haiti, Liberia, Mozambique, Azerbaijan, the United States of America, Lebanon, Pakistan, Cuba, Kenya, Cabo Verde, Equatorial Guinea, Timor-Leste, the Syrian Arab Republic, Kuwait, Namibia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Vanuatu, Italy, Cameroon, Argentina, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the observer of the Observer State of Palestine and the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Statements were also made by the observers of the Holy See and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The representatives of India and Pakistan spoke in the exercise of the right of reply.
A number of delegations expressed appreciation for the progress achieved under the agenda item following the adoption of General Assembly resolution , including the decision to convene a United Nations conference of plenipotentiaries and to establish a and working group, believing it to be demonstrative of a collective commitment of States to advance efforts on the matter. Several delegations recalled that crimes against humanity were among the most serious crimes under international law and shocked the conscience of humanity, noting their devastating and long-lasting impact on victims, communities and societies as a whole. Some delegations characterised the prohibition of crimes against humanity as a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens). Several delegations stressed that such crimes could threaten international peace and security, undermine the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and gravely affect the enjoyment of human rights. A number of delegations emphasized the shared responsibility and commitment of the international community to contribute to prevention, accountability and redress, and the role a future convention may have in achieving these aims. Historical injustices and atrocities, including slavery, the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism and apartheid were recalled, and some delegations underlined the need for their consequences to be acknowledged in the context of the prospective convention. Several delegations denounced contemporary situations they considered to involve atrocity crimes and invoked the suffering of specific populations in that regard. The importance of upholding the fundamental principles of the Charter, including sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity and non-intervention in the internal affairs of States, was highlighted. It was emphasised that implementation of a future convention should not infringe on State sovereignty.
Several delegations welcomed the decision to convene a United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries to elaborate a convention on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity and described it as a historic step that could close a significant gap in the existing treaty framework. A number of delegations considered that a new convention would consolidate and clarify existing obligations, strengthen prevention, facilitate domestic criminalization and prosecution and enhance international cooperation. Appreciation was expressed for the work of the International Law Commission in the form of the draft articles, which was considered to provide a solid, balanced basis for negotiations; delegations expressed openness to improvements and refinements to the draft articles during the forthcoming process. At the same time, some delegations questioned the need for a new convention, mentioning existing human rights and international humanitarian law instruments in that regard.
Delegations underlined that the process towards a convention should be fair, inclusive and transparent. Some delegations highlighted the need for clear, efficient rules of procedure that ensure inclusivity, transparency and flexibility. The importance to be guided, as far as possible, by the practice of consensus was mentioned. Several delegations emphasised the importance of broad, cross-regional participation in the and the Conference and welcomed the opportunity to present comments, proposals and formal amendments. A number of delegations noted that such a process should also take into account contemporary challenges, such as those caused by new and emerging technologies. Several delegations called for the negotiations to proceed in a depoliticized manner, avoiding selectivity and double standards and cautioned against the use of international criminal law for advancing political agendas or exerting pressure on States. The importance of the effective participation of civil society, academia and other experts, was underscored, with a number of delegations advocating for the participation of stakeholders without ECOSOC-affiliated status. A number of delegations also stressed the importance of capacity-building, technical assistance and resource support, in particular for developing countries, to enable effective national implementation of the future convention. It was highlighted that, while non-governmental and civil society organizations might participate, such participation should be appropriate and should not undermine State sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Several delegations expressed the view that a future convention should be victim and survivor-centred, with some highlighting the rights of victims to truth, justice, reparation and rehabilitation. Particular attention was drawn to the situation of women and children, including the need to address sexual and gender-based violence and other gender-related crimes as crimes against humanity and to provide for specific safeguards.
Some delegations proposed that the definition of crimes against humanity in draft article 2 be expanded to include, inter alia, slavery and the slave trade, colonialism and apartheid, the illegal exploitation or pillage of natural resources, serious violations against children, crimes perpetrated by terrorists and their sponsors , and crimes committed against occupied peoples or in the context of the struggle for self-determination. Other proposals included the treatment of serious environmental destruction, sometimes referred to as ecocide, the imposition of unilateral coercive measures and gender apartheid as conduct that could fall within the scope of the convention. A number of delegations stressed that any changes to the definition should take into account the need for broad acceptance by States and, in that regard, some pointed to the definition contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as an important point of reference, while others cautioned against importing definitions or concepts from treaties that did not enjoy universal participation.
Some delegations underlined the importance of explicit references to the principles of territorial integrity, sovereign equality of States, non-intervention in internal affairs and the prohibition of the threat or use of force in the text of a future convention. Other delegations emphasized that the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes against humanity rested with national jurisdictions rather than international courts and tribunals, and that the convention should be guided by the principle of complementarity. Several delegations expressed the view that the State where the crimes took place, or whose nationals committed them, was best placed to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity, while the role of other States remained subsidiary. Concerns were expressed by a number of delegations about the possible establishment or expansion of universal jurisdiction through the convention. Caution was urged to avoid undermining domestic legal systems or rules of customary international law on immunities of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. According to another view, broad jurisdictional bases, including universal jurisdiction, could play a role in preventing safe havens for alleged perpetrators.
Several delegations emphasized that the new convention should complement, and not duplicate or undermine, existing instruments, including the Rome Statute and the Ljubljana–The Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes and Other International Crimes. Concern was expressed regarding provisions that could be interpreted as designating international humanitarian law as lex specialis, as it could create uncertainty concerning the application of the convention in situations of armed conflict. Divergent views were expressed concerning the role of the International Criminal Court, with a number of delegations reiterating their support for the Court as a cornerstone in the fight against impunity, while others voicing concerns with aspects of the work of the Court.
Some delegations discussed the need to establish safeguards against misuse of any future legal instruments. A number of delegations underscored the central importance of international cooperation in criminal matters, including mutual legal assistance and extradition, to ensure that perpetrators of crimes against humanity did not find safe havens and to close existing jurisdictional gaps. Several delegations underscored the need to establish an independent monitoring mechanism. Some delegations shared information on their national efforts to incorporate crimes against humanity into domestic law, to strengthen investigative and prosecutorial capacities and to provide avenues for redress and stressed that effective national implementation would be essential to the success of the future convention. It was widely recognised that further discussions, including at the and the , would be necessary to address outstanding substantive and procedural issues, with a view to achieving an effective, widely acceptable and capable of commanding broad adherence convention.
Archived videos and summaries of plenary meetings
(13 October 2025, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary
(14 October 2025, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary
(14 October 2025, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary
(21 November 2025, 10:30am – 1:00pm) | Summary
Action taken by the Sixth Committee
At its 38th meeting, on 21 November 2025, the representative of Mexico, also on behalf of the sponsors, introduced draft decision and announced that Armenia, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Mozambique, New Zealand, Peru, the Philippines, the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Tunisia and Ukraine had joined in sponsoring the draft decision. Subsequently, Canada, Chile, the Congo, Japan and Senegal also joined as sponsors of the draft decision.
The Committee adopted draft decision , without a vote.
The representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sierra Leone and the Russian Federation spoke in explanation of position after the adoption of the draft resolution.
Under the terms of the draft decision, the General Assembly would decide, inter alia, that the second session of the for the shall be held over four days, from 12 to 15 April 2027. The General Assembly would further decide that the Sixth Committee include in the provisional agenda of its eighty-first session an item entitled “United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity”.
Subsequent action taken by the General Assembly
- Report of the Sixth Committee:
- GA decision: 80/521 [for the text of the decision, see the Sixth Committee's report to the General Assembly]
The agenda item entitled “United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity” will be considered at the eighty-first session (2026).
Related links
- Crimes against humanity (International Law Commission): |
