EU Statement – UN General Assembly 6th Committee Working Group – Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters (Cluster 1)

Thank you Mr Chair,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.

I would like first to express our full support to you in your function as Chair of this Working Group.

The European Union and its Member States welcome the engagement of the Sixth Committee with the products of the ILC. We look forward to fruitful deliberations and an in-depth legal examination of the draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters. This Working Group provides the opportunity to embark on this exercise and consider the recommendation of the ILC.

Our comments on all the clusters are informed by views expressed already during this and last session with the aim to engage constructively and identify potential substantive convergences. At the same time, they are based on the EU's substantive legislation and long practical experience in addressing or providing assistance to affected countries in efforts to address the effects of disasters around the globe and assist persons most in need.

Mr, Chair,

Without reiterating the general comments made at our Statement during the debate on Friday, let me turn immediately to Cluster 1. We have 3 initial remarks on the preamble.

• The EU and its Member States support fully that the preamble addresses the needs of affected persons and the requirement to respect their rights, which are also addressed in draft article 2, as well as the principle of sovereignty that entails the primary responsibility of affected States to provide disaster relief. We recall in this regard the Sendai Framework and the Political Declaration of the High-Level Meeting on the Midterm Review of the Sendai Framework that recognize the primary responsibility of the affected State to provide disaster relief, 'including through international, regional, subregional, transboundary and bilateral cooperation'.
• In line with our internal legislation (EU Civil Protection Mechanism or UCPM) that is premised on the principle of solidarity and provides for international cooperation to address the effects of disasters, we consider relevant references in the preamble consequential and useful to guide further the interpretation of the draft articles.
• Lastly, we support the broad cover of the draft articles that includes all phases of a disaster, i.e. prevention, preparedness, including risk reduction, and response. We recall once again here the need identified in the Mid-term review of the Sendai Framework for legal and regulatory frameworks in disaster risk governance.[1] We take note in this regard of the views of UNDRR that including disaster risk reduction within the scope of the draft articles 'would reinforce the commitment shown by Member States through [the] Sendai Framework […].'[2] In other words, it would 'complement, not duplicate, the Sendai Framework.[3] With the above in mind and consistently with draft article 9, we would be in favour of a recital on risk reduction and more generally a stronger emphasis both in the preamble and in the draft articles on prevention and preparedness efforts.

Turning to draft articles 1, 2, 3 and 18, we have 5 points to raise at this stage:

• First, following up on our previous comment, it is important that all phases of a disaster ratione temporis are covered by the draft articles, including the disaster risk reduction phase. This is confirmed in draft article 2 and draft article 9. Still, the wording in draft article 1 could be improved to reflect that the draft articles cover all phases of disasters. This comment also applies to a number of draft articles that textually seem to refer only or principally to disaster response.
• Secondly, we welcome the clarification in the Commentary to the draft articles that their scope ratione personae includes 'regional integration organizations'. Still, as suggested on multiple previous occasions, in the interest of legal clarity and certainty it would be useful to introduce expressly 'regional integration organizations' to the definition of 'other assisting actor' in draft article 3(d).
• Thirdly, draft article 3 contains important definitions. We will touch only on two of them in this intervention.
  • As regards the definition of 'disaster', our assessment and comments are informed by the definition of disasters in EU legislation - specifically in the UCPM. That definition is broad covering situations that have a severe impact on people, the environment, or property, including cultural heritage. With that in mind, we consider that there is still ample scope to reflect whether some further additions such as damage to cultural property would be of added value. At the same time, we recognize that there are other definitions of disaster such as the one by UNDRR, which are also worth taking into consideration in our reflections. We also look forward to hearing the views of other delegations as to the current reference to a serious disruption of the functioning of the society.
  • As suggested in previous statements and contributions of the EU, the reference to 'military personnel' in the definition of 'relief personnel' should be aligned with the Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief (Oslo Guidelines) and the Guidelines on the use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to Support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in Complex Emergencies. These specify that international military assets should be used as a last resort, when civilian alternatives are exhausted.

• Lastly, we welcome the 'without prejudice' clause in draft article 18 (1) that addresses the relationship between the draft articles and other applicable international law rules.

We also welcome that the relationship between the draft articles and International Humanitarian Law is addressed in draft article 18 (2), which acknowledges that in situations of armed conflict International Humanitarian Law takes precedence as lex specialis. It is important that the draft articles cannot be read or interpreted as affecting IHL. With the above in mind, it would certainly be beneficial to continue working on the wording of this paragraph.

Thank you.

[1]Resolution 77/289, Political declaration of the high-level meeting on the midterm review of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, para. 26.

[2] UNDRR, Information Note on Disaster Risk Reduction in advance of the Second Meeting of the Working Group on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters, September 2024.

[3]Ibid.