1.

Introduction to the Committee

1.1 Committee Overview
1.2 Mandate and Scope
1.3 Previous Works and Achievements

2. Agenda Item: Definition and Prosecution of Crimes Against Humanity

2.1 Background of the Subject
2.2 Current Legal Framework
2.3 Defining Crimes Against Humanity
2.4 Role of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
2.5 State Sovereignty and Global Justice
2.6 Accountability of Non-State Actors
2.7 Victim Protection and Reparations
2.8 Towards a Global Convention

3. Key Country Roles

4. Tips for Delegates

5. Questions to be Concerned

6. Bibliography
1. Introduction to the Committee
1.1 Committee Overview
The LEGAL Committee, the sixth committee of the United Nations General
Assembly, is tasked with addressing issues related to international law and it
plays a crucial role in shaping the legal principles governing relations between
states, international organizations, and individuals.
In this committee, delegates have the opportunity to discuss how international
law has evolved in response to contemporary challenges such as human rights,
cybersecurity, and global justice.
The LEGAL Committee offers a unique environment for delegates who seek to
develop fair and workable solutions by combining logical thinking, diplomacy,
and creativity. It is an excellent platform for future diplomats who wish to
contribute to the advancement of global justice.

1.2 Mandate and Scope

The Committee's mandate encompasses promoting the progressive development
of international law, ensuring justice among states, and strengthening legal
cooperation. The Committee examines issues such as treaty law, international
criminal law, the law of the sea, state responsibility, and the legal status of
international organizations.
In this context, it aims to strengthen the rule of law at both the national and
international levels, promote the peaceful resolution of disputes, and encourage
the establishment of treaties that protect human rights, justice, and equality.

1.3 Previous Works and Achievements

Since its inception, the Legal Committee has played a significant role in shaping
the international legal system. By drafting resolutions on numerous issues,
including the Rights and Obligations of States, Diplomatic and Consular
Relations, the Establishment of the International Criminal Court, the Law of the
Sea Convention, the Prevention of Terrorism, and the Protection of the Rights of
Asylum Seekers and Refugees, the Committee has strengthened the common
legal foundation of the international community.
Working in close collaboration with the International Law Commission (ILC),
the Committee played a leading role in the drafting of the Rome Statute and the
establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). These efforts are
considered significant achievements in protecting human rights, ensuring justice,
and strengthening the rule of law in interstate relations.

2. Agenda Item: Definition and Prosecution of Crimes Against

Humanity
2.1 Background of the Subject
Crimes against humanity are one of the most serious categories of international
crimes to emerge after World War II. The concept was first introduced during the
Nuremberg Trials (1945–1946) and formed a fundamental base for prosecuting
widespread or systematic attacks against civilians.
Over time, this definition has expanded to encompass grave violations of human
dignity such as genocide, torture, deportation, sexual violence, and racial or
political persecution. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
adopted in 1998, established the legal framework for crimes against humanity,
defining their definition, jurisdiction, and principles of individual responsibility
at the international level.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of
concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in
accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.

2.2 Current Legal Framework

In 2019, the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) published a
draft text titled "Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes
Against Humanity." This document defines states' obligations to prevent, punish,
and return crimes against humanity. It also clearly states that these crimes can be
committed not only in times of war but also in times of peace.
The draft, aligned with Article 7 of the Rome Statute, aims to strengthen
international cooperation. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom actively
support this text, while the United States, the Russian Federation, the People's
Republic of China, India,while not a direct party, advocate for the maintenance
of similar international criminal standards. This framework is one of the most
up-to-date legal foundations for the international community in combating
impunity for crimes against humanity.

2.3 Defining Crimes Against Humanity

Crimes against humanity are most generally defined as serious acts committed
against any civilian population in a widespread or systematic manner. As it is
mentioned in Part 3.1, the definition was first included in the Nuremberg Charter
(1945) and later expanded by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the
following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other
grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international
law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within
the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
According to the Rome Statute, acts such as murder, enslavement, deportation,
torture, sexual violence, enforced disappearance, and discriminatory persecution
fall within this scope.

The International Law Commission (ILC)'s 2019 Draft Articles reinforce the
definition of these crimes, emphasizing that they can be committed in peacetime
or wartime, and that states bear the responsibility to prevent and punish them.
This approach demonstrates that crimes against humanity can manifest not only
as individual acts but also as state policies or organized systematic attacks.

2.4 Role of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

The International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002 with the entry into
force of the Rome Statute, is an independent judicial body responsible for the
prosecution of the most serious international crimes, including crimes against
humanity. Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the Court has jurisdiction to try
individuals for genocide, war crimes, aggression, and crimes against humanity.
Countries such as Italy, Poland, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Vietnam, as
parties to the Rome Statute, recognize the ICC's jurisdiction and actively
contribute to the strengthening of international justice. However, some countries,
such as the United States, the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of
China, India, Israel, and Turkey, have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute.
This limits the Court's global jurisdiction and is considered one of the most
significant obstacles to the goal of universal justice.
The ICC's work continues to reinforce the principles of human rights,
accountability, and the rule of law by demonstrating that individuals can be held
internationally accountable for their crimes.

2.5 State Sovereignty and Global Justice

The prosecution of crimes against humanity represents the most complex
balance between state sovereignty and global justice.
The Rome Statute's principle of complementarity stipulates that the International
Criminal Court (ICC) should intervene when states are unable to provide justice
through their own domestic legal mechanisms. This ensures that the principle of
sovereignty is protected and that serious international crimes do not go
unpunished.
However, some states, particularly Russia, China, and the United States, have
chosen not to accede to the Rome Statute on the grounds that this principle could
limit their sovereign rights. This stance creates a double standard between the
protection of human rights and political interests and undermines the concept of
global justice. In contrast, countries such as Germany, France, and the United
Kingdom both support the Rome Statute and advocate for international
cooperation and accountability in combating crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are vital for
documenting crimes against humanity, ensuring the voices of victims are heard,
and informing the international public. In countries where these freedoms are
restricted -for example, censorship in China, the suppression of dissident media
in Russia, and political pressures on the media in some US policies- the
effectiveness of the justice system is seriously impaired.

A truly global justice system is possible not only with international courts, but
also with a free press, an independent judiciary, and the unrestricted right to
expression. At this point, freedom of expression and freedom of the press play a
vital role in revealing and documenting crimes against humanity.

Article 19 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries
with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain
restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are
necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of
public health or morals.
However, Article 20 specifies the limits of this article. Article 20 claims that:

Article 20 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement
to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
These two articles together show that while freedom of expression and the press
are fundamental to justice and accountability, they must also be exercised
responsibly to prevent the spread of hatred and violence.

2.6 Accountability of Non-State Actors

In today's conflicts, not only states but also non-state actors—armed
organizations, private military companies, militia groups, and terrorist
organizations—are among the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Such
actors often operate in areas where state authority is weak and commit
systematic violations against civilians. However, because international law is
fundamentally based on state responsibility, holding these groups accountable
for their actions, whether at the individual or institutional level, remains a
significant challenge.
Article 25 of the Rome Statute, by defining individual criminal responsibility,
paved the way for non-state actors to be tried before the International Criminal
Court (ICC). However, the Court's jurisdiction is limited only to crimes
committed on the territory of a State Party or by its citizens; this creates serious
gaps, for example, because states from which some armed
groups operate are not party to the Rome Statute. Consequently, the United
Nations, the International Law Commission (ILC), and regional courts are
taking new steps to strengthen international cooperation, evidence-sharing, and
judicial coordination mechanisms to increase the accountability of non-state
actors.

Article 25 of the Rome Statute (1998)

Individual Criminal Responsibility
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.
2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be
individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this
Statute.
3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and
liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that
person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or
through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally
responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact
occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or
otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including
providing the means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of
such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such
contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose
of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the
crime;
(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to
commit genocide;
(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its
execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because
of circumstances independent of the person’s intentions. However, a person who
abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of
the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to
commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal
purpose.
3 bis. In respect of the crime of aggression, the provisions of this article shall
apply only to persons in a position effectively to exercise control over or to
direct the political or military action of a State.
4. No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall
affect the responsibility of States under international law

Countries that are directly experiencing or partially affected by the problem:

Turkey → Cross-border conflicts (Syria-Iraq regions) face the activities of non-
state actors in the context of the fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and
other armed groups. However, Turkey is not a party to the Rome Statute, so the
ICC does not have direct jurisdiction.
India → Similar problems are being faced by armed groups and separatist
organizations in the Kashmir region and various internal security operations.
India is also not a party to the Rome Statute.
South Africa → A party to the Rome Statute, the ICC's place in domestic law is
controversial. The lack of accountability in cases of non-state militias and
political violence has been discussed in the past.
Brazil → Drug cartels and organized crime networks act as non-state authorities
in some regions; The issue of accountability for non-state actors in the context of
human rights violations has been raised.
Mexico → Cases similar to crimes against humanity have been discussed due to
cartels' acts of violence against civilians. Mexico is a party to the Rome Statute
and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Ukraine → After 2022, crimes allegedly committed by non-state armed groups
and foreign mercenaries were also included in the ICC's jurisdiction (Ukraine is
not a party but has granted ICC jurisdiction).
Sudan → The International Criminal Court intervened due to crimes against
humanity committed by the Janjaweed militia in the Darfur region. Sudan
remained non-cooperating for a long time, but partial cooperation began after
2020.
State of Palestine → The State of Palestine is a party to the Rome Statute and
has granted jurisdiction to the ICC, enabling it to investigate crimes against
humanity and war crimes alleged to have occurred in the Palestinian territories.

2.7 Victim Protection and Reparations

Justice for crimes against humanity can be achieved not only by punishing the
perpetrators but also by protecting and redressing the victims. The International
Criminal Court (ICC) is a pioneer in this regard, and Articles 68 and 75 of the
Rome Statute regulate the right to the safety of victims, witness protection, and
reparations. These articles stipulate the provision of physical, psychological, and
economic support to victims.

Article 68
Protection of the victims and witnesses and their participation in the
proceedings
1. The Court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and
psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. In so
doing, the Court shall have regard to all relevant factors, including age, gender
as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, and health, and the nature of the crime, in
particular, but not limited to, where the crime involves sexual or gender violence
or violence against children. The Prosecutor shall take such measures
particularly during the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. These
measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused
and a fair and impartial trial.
(...)
Article 75
Reparations to victims
1. The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of,
victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in
its decision the Court may, either upon request or on its own motion in
exceptional circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss
and injury to, or in respect of, victims and will state the principles on which it is
acting.
2. The Court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying
appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution,
compensation and rehabilitation. Where appropriate, the Court may order that
the award for reparations be made through the Trust Fund provided for in article
79.
(...)

The Trust Fund for Victims program was established for this purpose and has
provided assistance, particularly to victims of war, sexual violence, and forced
displacement. However, lack of evidence, security risks, and political obstacles
make the implementation of these processes difficult. Countries such as
Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands support international victim protection
mechanisms by contributing to these funds.

Article 79
Trust Fund
1. A Trust Fund shall be established by decision of the Assembly of States
Parties for the benefit of victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court,
and of the families of such victims.
2. The Court may order money and other property collected through fines or
forfeiture to be transferred, by order of the Court, to the Trust Fund.
3. The Trust Fund shall be managed according to criteria to be determined by the
Assembly of States Parties.

2.8 Towards a Global Convention

There is still no comprehensive and binding global convention on crimes against
humanity. The current legal framework is based on the Rome Statute and the
International Law Commission's (ILC) 2019 "Draft Articles on the Prevention
and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity." However, these texts have not
achieved the status of a universal treaty ratified by all states.
Therefore, many countries -notably France, Germany, Canada, and South Korea-
support the call for a binding UN convention governing the prevention,
punishment, and cooperation among states for crimes against humanity. Such a
convention would not only strengthen the fight against impunity but also
establish common standards for victim protection, evidence sharing, and
jurisdiction.
Adopting a global convention would legally reinforce the international
community's zero-tolerance policy towards crimes against humanity. This goal is
seen as one of the most important steps for the future of international justice.

3. Key Country Roles

Germany
Germany is a founding signatory of the Rome Statute and a strong advocate for
the International Criminal Court (ICC). The country supports broadening the
definition of crimes against humanity and institutionalizing interstate
cooperation. In the Sixth Committee, it played an active leadership role in the
adoption of the draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention. Germany prioritizes
the protection of victims and the guarantee of their right to reparations. The
country regularly contributes to the Trust Fund for Victims. Furthermore, under
the principle of universal jurisdiction, Germany is one of the few states that
prosecute crimes against humanity in its own courts.

France
France is a founding member of the ICC and actively defends the independence
of international criminal justice. The country aims to strengthen international
coordination on the definition, prevention, and punishment of crimes against
humanity. In the Sixth Committee, France provided diplomatic leadership within
the European Union for the ratification of the draft Crimes Against Humanity
Convention. The Paris government supports international investigations into
crises in Africa and the Middle East. France advocates for strengthening victim
protection programs. It also implements legal assistance projects for countries in
Africa and Asia to promote the universalization of the Rome Statute.

United Kingdom
While the United Kingdom is a party to the Rome Statute, it criticizes the ICC's
operational independence. London supports strengthening the definition of
crimes against humanity but maintains the primacy of the national judiciary. In
the Sixth Committee, the United Kingdom emphasizes that international justice
should be conducted independently of politics. The country supports the
development of legal standards for victim protection and witness protection.
Furthermore, the United Kingdom advocates for an approach that requires state
consent for the prosecution of soldiers serving in peacekeeping missions.
Diplomatically, it supports the Crimes Against Humanity Convention process
while maintaining its emphasis on sovereignty.

United States
The United States has signed but not ratified the Rome Statute and is therefore
not a party to the ICC. While Washington supports international criminal law in
principle, it opposes the ICC's exercise of authority over its military. In the Sixth
Committee, the US prioritizes international cooperation, education, and
diplomatic pressure to prevent crimes against humanity. The US advocates an
approach that encourages voluntary cooperation among states rather than
binding agreements. The US also emphasizes the need to strengthen regional
alliances and enforcement mechanisms to combat impunity. Furthermore, it is
one of the countries that provides funding for initiatives to protect victims.

Japan
Japan is the largest financial contributor to the ICC in Asia. In the Sixth
Committee, it plays an active role in technical regulations for the definition,
prevention, and punishment of crimes against humanity. The Tokyo government
defends the impartiality of international justice and supports the draft Crimes
Against Humanity Convention. Japan also conducts capacity-building programs
in evidence gathering and victim support. The US prioritizes diplomatic
measures against human rights violations and is actively engaged in diplomatic
efforts to disseminate the Rome Statute among Asian countries.
Russia
Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but withdrew its signature in 2016.
Moscow argues that the ICC has become a political tool and does not recognize
the Court's jurisdiction. In the Sixth Committee, Russia emphasizes the concepts
of state sovereignty and national judicial capacity. The country supports the
prevention of crimes against humanity but argues that its implementation should
only be carried out with state approval. Russia opposes universal jurisdiction
and argues that the ICC targets only certain states. Recently, due to the Ukraine
investigations, Russia's rhetoric has become defensive and sovereignty-centered.

China
China is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the jurisdiction
of the ICC. Beijing supports the identification and prevention of crimes against
humanity but maintains that this process should not be used as a tool for
interference in the internal affairs of states. At the Sixth Committee, China stated
that the definition of crimes against humanity should be universal but free from
political influence. The country prioritizes sovereignty and internal stability. It
also emphasizes that economic development is the key to preventing crimes in
the long term. China is positioned within the "pro-sovereignty" bloc alongside
developing countries.

Ukraine
While Ukraine is not a party to the Rome Statute, it made declarations
recognizing the ICC's jurisdiction in 2014 and 2022. This ensures the country's
full cooperation with the Court in investigating crimes against humanity. In the
Sixth Committee, Ukraine champions the principles of combating impunity and
individual responsibility. The Kyiv government plays an active role in swiftly
adhering to the Crimes Against Humanity Convention. The country is a pioneer
in evidence collection, digital monitoring, and victim support mechanisms. It
also emphasizes the need to strengthen solidarity in international law and
expand the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Palestine
Palestine has been a party to the Rome Statute since 2015 and recognizes the
ICC's jurisdiction over crimes in Gaza and the West Bank. In the Sixth
Committee, Palestine advocates for the protection of victims' rights and
universal prosecution of crimes against humanity. The delegation emphasizes
the need for independent and fair ratification of the Crimes Against Humanity
Convention. Palestine prioritizes the protection of civilians in the occupied
territories. It also emphasizes the need to free international justice from political
influence. The country actively seeks diplomatic support to protect victims and
ensure accountability.

Brazil
Brazil is a party to the Rome Statute and plays an active role in international
criminal law in Latin America. In the Sixth Committee, it takes a conciliatory
stance on preventing crimes against humanity and providing reparations to
victims. The country faces challenges in combating organized crime and police
violence domestically. Brazil openly supports the Crimes Against Humanity
Convention process. It also advocates for the development of restorative justice
approaches for victims. It works to strengthen regional cooperation with Latin
American countries.

Spain
Spain was one of the first European countries to ratify the Rome Statute and has
integrated the principle of universal jurisdiction into its domestic law. In the
Sixth Committee, it advocates for a global definition of crimes against humanity.
The country openly supports the adoption of the draft Crimes Against Humanity
Convention. Spain provides legal advice for the implementation of international
justice in cases of human rights violations in Latin America. It cooperates
closely with the ICC on victim protection, witness protection, and reparation
mechanisms. It also supports restorative justice policies, drawing on past
experiences with authoritarian regimes.

Sudan
Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute, but it is one of the ICC's most
notorious case countries due to crimes against humanity in Darfur. The arrest
warrant issued against former leader Omar al-Bashir in 2009 was a first in the
Court's history. This decision deepened sovereignty debates within the country.
In the Sixth Committee, Sudan advocated for strengthening the national
judiciary. It approached the Crimes Against Humanity Convention process
cautiously. Currently, the Khartoum government cooperates with the ICC to a
limited extent.

Vietnam
Vietnam is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the ICC's
jurisdiction. The country supports the prevention of crimes against humanity but
prioritizes state sovereignty. In the Sixth Committee, Vietnam advocates for a
non-politicized approach to international law. It contributes to building human
rights capacity within ASEAN. It follows the draft Crimes Against Humanity
Convention but is not a party. It has historically prioritized victim protection
policies.

South Africa
South Africa is a party to the Rome Statute and one of the first countries in
Africa to support the ICC. It discussed withdrawing after the Al-Bashir incident
in 2015, but reversed its decision. In its Sixth Committee, it emphasizes the
ICC's need to operate in a fair and balanced manner. It supports the Crimes
Against Humanity Convention process. It calls for the strengthening of regional
judicial institutions. The country stands out with its experience in transitional
justice.
Canada
Canada is a founding member of the Rome Statute and strongly supports the
ICC. In its Sixth Committee, it prioritizes individual responsibility and victims'
rights. It actively contributed to the draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention.
Canada focuses on the protection of women and child victims. It also provides
regular support to the Trust Fund for Victims. The country advocates for the
administration of justice independent of politics.

Mexico
Mexico is a party to the Rome Statute and plays an active role in preventing
crimes against humanity. Organized crime and non-state violence are significant
problems in the country. In the Sixth Committee, Mexico emphasizes
accountability and the responsibility of non-state actors. It supports the Crimes
Against Humanity Convention process. It advocates for the development of
victim compensation and restorative justice systems. It pursues a regional
cooperation approach.

Taiwan
Because Taiwan is not a member of the UN, it cannot be a party to the Rome
Statute, but it does de facto comply with ICC principles. The Taipei government
has high standards in human rights law. While not a direct participant in the
Sixth Committee, it is active in regional platforms. The country implements
advanced systems for victim protection and witness protection. It indirectly
supports the Crimes Against Humanity Convention process. Taiwan is de facto
compliant with international criminal law.

Turkey
Turkey is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the jurisdiction
of the ICC. The Sixth Committee supports the prevention of crimes against
humanity. Ankara advocates for the draft's adoption without politicization. The
country contributes with victim support programs and humanitarian aid. Turkey
prioritizes national judicial capacity and emphasizes the balance between
sovereignty and justice.
Netherlands
The Netherlands is the host country of the ICC and a party to the Rome Statute.
The Sixth Committee prioritizes victim protection and witness safety. It is a
strong supporter of the Crimes Against Humanity Convention process. The
country defends the independence of international justice. It also provides funds
to enhance the ICC's capacity. The Netherlands promotes the rule of law at the
global level.

Indonesia
Indonesia is not a party to the Rome Statute and emphasizes sovereignty within
ASEAN. The country supports international criminal law in principle but is
cautious about joining the ICC. It is not directly active in the Sixth Committee
but supports regional cooperation. Indonesia is pursuing human rights reforms
within the framework of its national judicial system.

Thailand
Thailand is not a party to the Rome Statute but plays an active role in
peacekeeping missions. It is an observer in the Sixth Committee and supports
the prevention of crimes against humanity. The country advocates for
strengthening national judicial capacity. Internal discussions on ICC accession
are ongoing.

Italy
Italy is a founding member of the Rome Statute and one of the EU's strongest
supporters of the ICC. It explicitly supports the draft Crimes Against Humanity
Convention in the Sixth Committee. The country prioritizes victim protection
and universal access to justice. Italy works to develop international legal
capacity at the European level.

Poland
Poland is a party to the Rome Statute and advocates for the strengthening of
international criminal law in Eastern Europe. In the Sixth Committee, it supports
the principle of universal jurisdiction and individual responsibility. The country
actively contributes to the investigation of crimes against humanity in Ukraine.
Poland advocates for the international protection of the rule of law.

Sweden
Sweden is a party to the Rome Statute and stands out for its victim-centered
approach to justice. In the Sixth Committee, it advocates for the strengthening of
victim protection mechanisms. The country makes significant contributions to
the ICC's victims' fund. Sweden is considered an exemplary country for its
policies focusing on the rights of women and children.

Morocco
Morocco is not a party to the Rome Statute but is active in the UN Human
Rights Council. In the Sixth Committee, it advocates for the definition of crimes
against humanity to be consistent with universal values. The country maintains
its emphasis on national sovereignty. Morocco sets a regional example with its
policies of reconciliation and transitional justice.

South Korea
South Korea is a party to the Rome Statute and actively supports the ICC. It
supports the progress of the Crimes Against Humanity Convention process in
the Sixth Committee. The country argues that the definition of crimes against
humanity should include modern threats. The Seoul government funds legal
programs that strengthen victims' rights.

India
India is not a party to the Rome Statute and prioritizes the principle of
sovereignty. In the Sixth Committee, it advocates that international justice
should be carried out with state approval. The country demands that the
definition of crimes against humanity be consistent with national law. India
maintains the primacy of the national judiciary.
Argentina
Argentina is a party to the Rome Statute and is known for its experience in
transitional justice. It supports the Crimes Against Humanity Convention
process in the Sixth Committee. The country advocates for the protection of
victims and the strengthening of processes for dealing with the past. Argentina is
a pioneer in restorative justice practices in Latin America.

4. Tips for Delegates

Before entering debate, ensure that you are familiar with the Rome Statute
(1998), particularly Article 7, which defines crimes against humanity. Also,
study the 2019 ILC Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes
Against Humanity, as this document forms the backbone of current UN
discussions toward a potential global convention.
You must understand the distinction between crimes against humanity, war
crimes, and genocide, these are not interchangeable terms. A delegate who can
clearly articulate these boundaries will always command attention.
One of the central tensions in this topic is the balance between state sovereignty
and international intervention. Delegates from nations such as China, Russia, the
USA, India, and Türkiye often emphasize sovereignty, while countries like
Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands advocate for a stronger international
legal mechanism.
Neither side is “wrong”. Your task is to describe why your country believes what
it believes. Remember that diplomacy is not about proving others wrong, it’s
about finding common ground that acknowledges differing priorities.
Legal discussions can become abstract, but at their core lie human stories.
Delegates must remember that “crimes against humanity” include torture,
persecution, enslavement, and enforced disappearance; crimes that destroy lives
and entire communities.
Always bring the victim perspective into debate. Mention institutions like the
Trust Fund for Victims and the principle of restorative justice. Countries like
Sweden, Argentina, and Canada strongly advocate for victim protection;
building alliances with them can strengthen humanitarian clauses in your draft
resolution.
To be honest, this topic will likely divide the committee into two or three
ideological blocs:
  Pro-ICC Bloc: Germany, France, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, South
Korea, Spain.

 Sovereignty Bloc: China, Russia, India, Türkiye, USA.

 Humanitarian/Hybrid Bloc: Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and

Sweden.
Don’t merely follow your bloc — lead within it. Offer legal compromises:
“conditional jurisdiction,” “regional courts,” or “review mechanisms” are
powerful terms that can bridge divides.
When drafting resolutions, ensure that each operative clause serves a real
purpose: create, enforce, or protect.
The goal of this debate is not just punishment, but prevention. Encourage your
committee to include education programs, legal aid systems, and early warning
mechanisms.
Crimes against humanity often begin with propaganda, dehumanization, and
silence. Your resolution can include international campaigns to combat
misinformation, promote tolerance, and strengthen civic education.
5. Questions to be Concerned
1- How can evidence gathering and witness protection processes for war crimes
committed in conflict zones such as Ukraine, Palestine and Sudan be made
safer?
2- What preventive measures (legal, educational, or diplomatic) can be
introduced to detect and stop Crimes Against Humanity before they occur?
3- What policies can be adopted to ensure that digital and AI-generated evidence
is admissible in cases of Crimes Against Humanity?
6. Bibliography
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
covenant-civil-and-political-rights
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
practices/india
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
practices/brazil
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
and-guidelines-right-remedy-and-reparation