The Republic of Cyprus urged for clear terminology and criteria for non-legally binding International Instruments during the UN 6th Committee on the Report of the International Law Commission (ILC).
The Cypriot representative, Theodoulos Pittakis in anintervention before the Committee focused on Chapter IX concerning non-legally binding international agreements, welcoming the work of Special Rapporteur Mathias Forteau and the importance of clarifying distinctions between treaties and non-binding instruments.
Cyprus ‘aligns itself with the statement made by the European Union’ and reaffirmed its appreciation for the ILC’s work, which it considers ‘of central practical importance in the context of international relations.’ The Cypriot representative, Theodoulos Pittakis reiterated that, in assessing the legal nature of documents, ‘the intention of the parties thereto, as reflected in the content and form, is the focus of such assessment.’
However, Cyprus expressed reservations about the terminology used in the draft. It ‘refrains from using the term ‘international agreements’ to describe a document… not intended to create any legal rights or obligations under international law,’ warning that this usage ‘creates confusion and can be misleading as to the legal nature of the document.’ Instead, Cyprus welcomed the recognition of the term ‘instrument’ as a more appropriate alternative, provided it is defined clearly ‘to exclude unilateral acts.’
Pittakis supported the Rapporteur’s view that the study’s scope should cover only written instruments of an international nature, explicitly excluding non-binding provisions in treaties, resolutions, and unilateral acts. Cyprus further emphasized that the study ‘should specifically be limited to instruments that would otherwise qualify as treaties but for the legally non-binding nature.’
Cyprus agreed with the view that a document can be ‘politically binding without being legally binding,’ and described its domestic practice: a case-by-case legal assessment is undertaken by the Law Office of the Republic to determine the nature of an instrument, evaluate its compatibility with the Constitution and national legislation, and conduct a ‘comprehensive legal risk assessment’ of its implications.
On the criteria of intent, Cyprus concurred that ‘the intention of the parties (or participants) would be the primary criterion’ but stressed that an express statement of intent ‘is not necessarily decisive on its own.’ It endorsed the Rapporteur’s suggestion to add ‘the word ‘generally’ before the adjective ‘sufficient’ in Draft conclusion 6′ to reflect that broader practice. Similarly, it supported identifying objective indicators to determine legal nature when intent is not explicitly stated, calling for a ‘concise draft conclusion that provides an indicative list of consistent indicators.’
Referring to national practice, the representative highlighted that Cyprus has issued its own practical manual ‘based on generally accepted jurisprudence and doctrine on the law of treaties,’ which clarifies that ‘legally non-binding instruments should not contain provisions or language that create legally binding rights and obligations.’
In conclusion, Cyprus ‘congratulated the ILC and the Special Rapporteur for their exemplary work’ and expressed readiness to engage further once the third report and draft conclusions on distinguishing treaties from non-binding instruments are finalized.