Ginger Without Borders

, ,

Inside the International Law Commission: Works in Progress

Published by

GingerWithoutBorders

on

In an era marked by geopolitical fragmentation and open challenges to international norms, the relevance of international law is often questioned. Yet it is precisely under such conditions that international law is most significant. To that end, understanding the institutions that interpret and articulate international law—particularly in moments of strain—is essential. One such institution is the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC), which occupies a unique position in the international legal order.

This post is the tenth in a multi-part series connected to my work as an adjunct professor at American University, Washington College of Law, where I am teaching an upper-level practicum on the ILC. The aim of this series is to make the institutional role, working methods, and legal significance of the ILC more accessible to readers beyond the classroom.

As always, if there’s something you’d like to see added, clarified, or explored further, I’m happy to hear from you!

Introduction

As explored in the previous post, the Commission has addressed topics spanning ten thematic fields of public international law over the course of its existence. Building on that discussion, this post zooms in on where the Commission’s work stands today.

For the Commission’s seventy-seventh session, which begins in-person meetings at the end of April 2026, nine topics are on the active programme of work:

  1. Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction
  2. Succession of States in respect of State responsibility
  3. General principles of law
  4. Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law
  5. Non-legally binding international agreements
  6. Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties
  7. Prevention and repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea
  8. Due diligence in international law
  9. Compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts

One important piece of context runs through the status of nearly all of these topics: last year’s 2025 session was reduced to just five weeks due to the UN’s ongoing budgetary crisis—down from the Commission’s standard ten to twelve weeks—causing a cascading effect on progress across the board.[1]

Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction

This is one of the Commission’s longest-running and most closely watched active topics. The Commission first took it up in 2008, and its history illustrates something important about how the Commission works in practice: complex, politically sensitive topics take time, and leadership continuity matters enormously.

The topic addresses whether a foreign court can prosecute a sitting or former head of State, foreign minister, or other official for international crimes, or whether State immunity shields them from that jurisdiction. It therefore sits at the intersection of sovereignty and accountability—two of the most fundamental (often competing) aspects of international law. Given its contemporary relevance in light of recent global events, the Commission’s final product on this topic will likely be one of the most significant contributions to international criminal law since the beginning of the 21st century.

Since 2008, there have been three Special Rapporteurs. The first, Mr. Roman Kolodkin, produced three reports before leaving the Commission. The second, Ms. Concepción Escobar Hernández, was appointed in 2012 and produced eight reports guiding the topic through its most substantive development—including the contentious question of whether and how exceptions to immunity apply in cases of international crimes. The third, Mr. Claudio Grossman, was appointed in 2023 and has been steering the topic toward completion.

In 2025, despite the shortened session, the Commission was able to discuss Mr. Grossman’s second report in both Plenary and Drafting Committee. The Commission was also able to adopt draft articles 1, 3, 4, and 5 on second reading. However, the adoption on second reading of draft articles 7, 8, and 9 had to be postponed to the next session because of the shortened schedule. Additionally, draft articles 10 through 18 are still pending and must be adopted on second reading before the project will be officially completed.  

Succession of States in Respect of State Responsibility

This topic asks a deceptively difficult question: if State A commits an internationally wrongful act and is then succeeded by State B—whether through merger, dissolution, or some other form of State succession—does State B inherit any responsibility for that wrong? The answer has real-world implications for reparations, restitution, and accountability after major geopolitical transformations. Unfortunately, though, the Commission has decided to discontinue its work on this topic without completing any draft provisions or associated commentary.

The topic was added to the programme of work in 2017, and Mr. Pavel Šturma was appointed as Special Rapporteur. He produced five reports between 2017 and 2022, laying substantial groundwork for the topic. However, Mr. Šturma was not re-elected for the 2023 to 2027 Commission term, meaning a new Special Rapporteur needed to be elected.

In 2023 and 2024, the Commission shifted to a Working Group format, with Mr. August Reinisch serving as Chair, to consider how to move forward with the topic. Having considered multiple potential pathways, the Commission recommended in 2024 that a new Working Group be established in the upcoming session whose task would be to “bring the work of the Commission on the topic to an end”.[2]

To that end, in 2025, the Commission again established a new Working Group, this time with Mr. Bimal N. Patel as Chair, but the shortened session meant it was only able to hold a single meeting. Accordingly, the Commission could not conclude its work on State succession, and was forced to postpone this task until 2026.

General Principles of Law

General principles of law are one of the three primary sources of international law listed in the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alongside treaties and customary international law.[3] Throughout its history, the Commission has undertaken a coordinated effort to explain each of the ICJ Statute’s sources of international law, so that practitioners can identify and apply them with confidence. Having already addressed treaties and customary international law, the study of general principles continues that effort, clarifying their content, scope, and relationship to other sources.

The topic was added to the programme of work in 2018, with Mr. Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez appointed as Special Rapporteur. Progress has been steady: a first report in 2019, a second in 2021 (the 2020 session having been cancelled due to COVID), and a third in 2022. In 2023, the Drafting Committee produced a report, and the draft conclusions were transmitted to Governments for first reading (i.e., to provide the Commission with written comments), with a submission deadline of 1 December 2024. The topic therefore began consideration on second reading in 2025, and the Commission received a fourth report from the Special Rapporteur that described the States’ comments on the draft conclusions from the first reading.

Despite the shortened 2025 session, the Commission was able to discuss the report in both Plenary and Drafting Committee. Adoption of the draft conclusions on second reading—the final step in the Commission’s process—was also planned for 2025; however, it was postponed due to the shortened session. The topic is expected to reach its conclusion during the upcoming 2026 session.

Settlement of Disputes to Which International Organizations Are Parties

Traditional mechanisms for resolving international disputes were specifically designed with States in mind. However, international organizations—the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and numerous others—are not States. Yet they enter into contracts, cause harm, and may find themselves in disputes, leaving parties with no obvious avenues for redress. This raises a central question, which is addressed by this topic: how can parties seek redress for harm caused by an international organization outside of the traditional State-centric dispute settlement mechanisms?

The topic was added to the long-term programme of work in 2016, with a syllabus annexed to that year’s annual report. In 2022, the topic was moved to the Commission’s active programme of work, with Mr. August Reinisch appointed as Special Rapporteur. The Commission received its first report in 2023, second report in 2024, and third in 2025. However, because of the shortened 2025 session, substantive consideration of the third report was postponed until the 2026 session.

Prevention and Repression of Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea

Piracy may conjure images of an earlier era, or possibly thoughts of Captain Jack Sparrow, but in fact it remains a live concern in international law and international security. Attacks on vessels continue to threaten shipping lanes, endanger crews, and test the limits of existing legal frameworks. The Commission took up this topic in part because the existing legal tools, including the relevant provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, leave a number of important questions unresolved.

The topic was added to the long-term programme of work in 2019, with a syllabus annexed to that year’s annual report. In 2022, the topic was moved to the Commission’s active programme of work, with Mr. Yacouba Cissé appointed as Special Rapporteur. The Commission received a first report from Mr. Cissé in 2023, and a second in 2024.

During the 2024 session, Mr. Cissé resigned from acting as Special Rapporteur; the Commission then appointed Mr. Louis Savadogo to replace him. In 2025, instead of submitting another report, the new Special Rapporteur submitted a substantive note identifying the major legal themes of the work, outlining the general areas of inquiry, and providing methodological guidance for the topic’s future consideration. However, because of the shortened 2025 session, the Commission was unable to consider it in plenary.

Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of International Law

Tied to the Commission’s consideration of general principles of law, this topic is a continuation of the Commission’s efforts to clarify the sources of international law enumerated in the ICJ Statute. The Statute of the ICJ provides three primary sources of international law, explained above, as well as two “subsidiary” sources that may be used to clarify the primary sources of law: (1) the decisions of courts and tribunals and (2) the writings of highly qualified scholars.[4] Accordingly, these sources function as tools for legal actors to identify what international law requires. The Commission’s work on the topic investigates how much weight these sources carry, how they relate to the primary sources of international law, and whether their role has evolved as international courts and tribunals have proliferated.

The topic was added to the long-term programme of work in 2021, with a syllabus annexed to that year’s annual report. In 2022, the topic was moved to the Commission’s active programme of work, with Mr. Charles Chernor Jalloh appointed as Special Rapporteur. The Commission received a first report in 2023, accompanied by a Secretariat memorandum identifying the elements in the previous work of the Commission that could be particularly relevant.[5] A second report followed in 2024, again accompanied by a Secretariat memorandum identifying elements in “the case law of international courts and tribunals, and other bodies, which would be particularly relevant”.[6] The Commission then received a third report in 2025—though, again, the Commission had to postpone substantive consideration of the report due to its shortened session.

Non-Legally Binding International Agreements

States regularly enter into arrangements with each other that are deliberately structured to fall outside the category of legally binding treaties: memoranda of understanding, joint statements, political declarations, and similar instruments. These arrangements are sometimes called “soft law”, though the term is contested. They are not enforceable in the same way that treaties are, but they are not legally irrelevant either. They can reflect State practice, shape expectations, and influence behavior in ways that matter for the development of international law. Indeed, non-legally binding international agreements were a heavily debated topic in Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) before the ICJ. The Commission’s work on this topic therefore examines the nature, content, and legal status of these instruments.

The topic was added to the long-term programme of work in 2022, with a syllabus annexed to that year’s annual report. In 2023, the topic was moved to the Commission’s active programme of work, with Mr. Mathias Forteau appointed as Special Rapporteur. The Commission received a first report in 2024, followed by a second report in 2025. However, as with the other topics, the Commission had to postpone substantive consideration of the 2025 report due to its shortened session.

Due Diligence in International Law

Due diligence refers broadly to the obligation of States to take reasonable steps to prevent certain harms from occurring—even harms caused not by the State itself, but by actors within its territory or control. The concept appears across many areas of international law: environmental law, human rights law, the law of State responsibility, and investment law, among others. Nevertheless, the precise content, scope, and legal implications of due diligence obligations vary considerably depending on the context, and no comprehensive framework currently exists for understanding it as a unified legal concept. This topic is the Commission’s attempt to provide that framework.

The topic was added to the long-term programme of work in 2024, with a syllabus annexed to that year’s annual report. In 2025, the Commission added due diligence to the active programme of work and appointed Ms. Penelope Ridings as Special Rapporteur. The topic is, for now, at its very beginning.

Compensation for the Damage Caused by Internationally Wrongful Acts

When a State commits an internationally wrongful act (i.e., a violation of an international obligation), it bears responsibility for the consequences. The legal framework governing State responsibility was codified by the Commission in its Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (commonly known as the “Articles on State Responsibility” or “ARSIWA”), completed in 2001. However, those articles—influential as they are—did not fully resolve the important questions related to remedies in international law. In particular, the question of what compensation is owed, how it should be calculated, and what form it should take continue to generate uncertainty in practice and litigation.

This topic was added to the long-term programme of work in 2024, with a syllabus annexed to that year’s annual report. In 2025, alongside due diligence, the Commission added compensation to the active programme of work and appointed Mr. Mārtiņš Paparinskis as Special Rapporteur. As with due diligence, the Commission’s consideration of this topic is just getting started.

Conclusion

Looking across these nine topics, a few patterns are worth noting. First, the Commission continues to engage in its efforts to clarify the sources of international law enumerated in the ICJ Statute. Second, many of its topics—including due diligence and compensation for internationally wrongful acts—address foundational concepts in international law and ask whether the legal community’s understanding of them has developed sufficiently to warrant more precise formulation. Third, topics like piracy and non-legally binding agreements reflect a Commission that is responsive to contemporary legal needs rather than simply consolidating established doctrine. Fourth, the shadow of the 2025 session’s shortened calendar falls over nearly every topic on the list: a practical reminder that the Commission’s work unfolds within real institutional and financial constraints, not just legal ones.

The Commission’s 2026 session will be a busy one. Several topics are approaching completion, and the two newest are only just finding their footing. For anyone following the development of international law in real time, the Commission’s active programme is one of the most important places to look.

[1] The seventy-sixth session was held at the United Nations Office in Geneva from 28 April to 30 May 2025, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 79/121 (4 December 2024). The reduction from ten to five weeks was a direct consequence of the financial crisis facing the United Nations.

[2] See Document A/CN.4/L.1003; Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-ninth Supplement No. 10 (A/79/10), paras. 306–308.

[3] Article 38(1) of the Statute of the ICJ identifies the sources of international law that the Court shall apply: (a) international conventions; (b) international custom; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and (d) judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists, as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. The Commission’s topic corresponds directly with Article 38(1)(c).

[4] Article 38(1) of the Statute of the ICJ identifies the sources of international law that the Court shall apply: (a) international conventions; (b) international custom; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and (d) judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists, as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. The Commission’s topic corresponds directly with Article 38(1)(d).

[5] U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/759.

[6] U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/765.

Course Materials

Topics Under ConsiderationDownload

References

International Law Commission:

Leave a comment

Previous Post