About the Commission
Organization, programme and methods of work
Meetings of the Commission
Rules of procedure
As a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, the procedure of the Commission is governed by the rules of procedure of the General Assembly relating to the procedure of committees (rules 96 to 133) as well as rule 45 (duties of the Secretary-General) and rule 60 (public and private meetings) unless the Assembly or the Commission decides otherwise.1 The Commission, at its first session, in 1949, decided that these rules of procedure should apply to the procedure of the Commission, and that the Commission should, when the need arose, adopt its own rules of procedure.2
At the beginning of each session, the Commission adopts the agenda for the session. The provisional agenda is prepared by the Secretariat on the basis of the decisions of the Commission and the pertinent provisions of the Statute. The order in which items are listed in the agenda adopted does not necessarily determine their actual order of consideration by the Commission. The agenda of a given session is to be distinguished from the Commission’s programme of work. Not every topic on the programme of work is necessarily included in the agenda of a particular session.3 The Commission gives serious consideration to recommendations by the General Assembly to include a topic in the agenda of its next session. However, the Commission decides whether it is appropriate to follow such a recommendation, which is not reflected in the provisional agenda prepared by the Secretariat, in the light of its previous decisions concerning the plan of work for the session.4
The official languages of the Commission are those of the United Nations, namely Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.5 In the subsidiary bodies, discussion is predominantly in English and French, coinciding with the working language of the text under discussion, if applicable, but members are free to use other official languages.6
The Chairman of the Commission may declare a meeting open and permit the debate to proceed when at least one quarter of the members are present. The presence, however, of a majority of the Commission’s members is required for a decision to be taken by the Commission. In addition, the Chairman of the Commission (or of a subsidiary body, as the case may be) may, from time to time, be called upon to make a ruling (usually on procedural matters).7. Decisions are taken by a majority of the members present and voting. Members who abstain from voting are considered as not voting.8
In the early years of the Commission, decisions were often taken by vote. At a later stage, it became more common for the Commission to take decisions on procedural and substantive matters without a vote, by common understanding or consensus.9 In 1996, the Commission discussed the method of voting in the plenary and subsidiary bodies and made some suggestions.10 It was noted, that although at present the Commission and its subsidiary bodies11 attempted to reach consensus, it would be less burdensome and time-consuming to call for an indicative vote in certain cases, for instance, on provisional and tentative points or points of detail, with the reflection of minority views in the summary records and in the report of the Commission. “When decisions ultimately come to be taken, again every effort should be made to reach a consensus, but if this is not possible in the time available, a vote may have to be taken.”12
Report of the Commission
At the end of each session, the Commission adopts a report to the General Assembly, covering the work of the session, on the basis of a draft prepared by the General Rapporteur with the assistance of the Special Rapporteurs concerned and the Secretariat.13
The report includes information concerning the organization of the session, the progress of work14 and the future work of the Commission on the topics given substantive consideration during the session, the texts of draft articles and commentaries adopted by the Commission during the session, any procedural recommendations of the Commission calling for a decision on the part of the General Assembly as well as other decisions and conclusions of the Commission.15
The structure of the report has changed from time to time.16 At present, it is divided into the following main chapters: the first chapter deals with organizational issues; the second chapter summarizes the work of the session; the third chapter identifies specific issues on which comments of Governments would be of particular interest to the Commission; subsequent chapters are devoted to each of the different topics considered at the session; and the last chapter contains other decisions and conclusions of the Commission. The Commission has, on occasion, also decided to include other relevant documents, such as reports of working groups or syllabuses prepared for individual topics to be included on its long-term programme of work, in an annex to its report.17
The Commission’s annual report is the means by which it keeps the General Assembly informed on a regular basis of the progress of its work on the various topics on its current programme as well as of its achievements in the preparation of draft articles on these topics. The report is also the means by which the Commission’s drafts are given the necessary publicity provided for in articles 16 and 21 of its Statute.18
Since its establishment, the Commission has been provided with summary records of its meetings in both provisional and final form,19 in accordance with the consistent policy of the General Assembly.20 At its thirty-second session, in 1980, the Commission concluded that the provision of summary records of its meetings constitutes an inescapable requirement for the procedures and methods of work of the Commission and for the process of codification of international law in general. The Commission has observed that the need for summary records in the context of its procedures and methods of work was determined by, inter alia, its functions and composition. As its task is mainly to draw up drafts providing a basis for the elaboration by States of legal codification instruments, the debates and discussions held in the Commission on proposed formulations are of paramount importance, in terms of both substance and wording, for the understanding of the rules proposed to States by the Commission. Pursuant to the Commission’s Statute, members of the Commission serve in a personal capacity and do not represent Governments. Therefore, States have a legitimate interest in knowing not only the conclusions of the Commission as a whole as recorded in its reports but also those of its individual members contained in the summary records of the Commission, particularly if it is borne in mind that members of the Commission are elected by the General Assembly so as to ensure representation in the Commission of the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world. The summary records of the Commission are also a means of making its deliberations accessible to international institutions, learned societies, universities and the public in general. They play an important role, in that respect, in promoting knowledge of and interest in the process of promoting the progressive development of international law and its codification. The Commission has emphasized the importance of providing summary records of its meetings in both provisional and final form and expressed its appreciation to the General Assembly for doing so.21
Yearbook of the Commission
Following a request by the Commission, the General Assembly, in resolution 987 (X) of 3 December 195522, requested the Secretary-General to arrange for the printing of: (a) the principal documents (namely, studies, reports, principal draft resolutions and amendments presented to the Commission) relating to the first seven sessions, in their original languages, and the summary records of these sessions, initially in English; and (b) the principal documents and summary records relating to the subsequent sessions, in English, French and Spanish. As a result, an annual publication entitled Yearbook of the International Law Commission has been printed in two volumes in respect of each session (except the first session for which there is only one volume). The Yearbook has also been published in Russian since 1969, in Arabic since 1982 and in Chinese since 1989. Volume I of the Yearbook contains the summary records of the meetings of the Commission and volume II reproduces the principal documents, including the Commission’s report to the General Assembly. Volume II is published in two parts, part two reproducing, since 1976, the annual report of the Commission to the General Assembly.23
In 2011, the Commission noted that, “since its inception, the Yearbook of the International Law Commission has become an authoritative international legal publication critical to the understanding of the Commission’s work in the progressive development of international law and its codification, as well as in the strengthening of the rule of law in international relations. The Yearbook has been extensively cited in legal proceedings before international courts and tribunals, and by Governments in their official communications. It has further proved an invaluable resource for practitioners and academics alike seeking evidence of customary international law. The Yearbook constitutes an indispensable tool for the preservation of the legislative history of the documents emanating from the Commission, as well as for the teaching, study, dissemination and wider appreciation of the efforts undertaken by the Commission in the progressive development of international law and its codification.”24
By its very nature, the documentation of the Commission is comprehensive and, therefore, often lengthy. From time to time, the Commission has addressed the question of the applicability of United Nations regulations for the control and limitation of documentation to its own documentation.25 The Commission noted that the length of its documentation depended upon a series of variable factors, for example: (i) as regards its annual report, the duration of the session, the topics considered, the draft articles and commentaries included and the Commission’s perception of the need for explaining the work accomplished at that session and justifying the draft articles contained therein to the General Assembly and Member States;26 (ii) as regards information provided by Governments and international organizations, the volume of relevant information submitted by them since it is an absolute need for the Commission to have at its disposal, in extenso and in its working languages, the replies of Governments and international organizations to its requests for information;27 (iii) as regards the reports and working papers of the Special Rapporteurs, the scope and complexity of the topic in question, the stage of the Commission’s work on the topic, the nature and number of proposals made by the Special Rapporteur, in particular draft articles with supporting data derived from, inter alia, State practice and doctrine, including analysis of relevant debates held in the General Assembly as well as comments and observations submitted by Governments;28 and (iv) as regards research studies by the Secretariat, the nature of studies which usually reflect “treaties, judicial decisions and doctrine” as well as “the practice of States”, indispensable for the Commission’s study of the various topics on its programme and formulation of commentaries on the drafts it proposes to the General Assembly, according to article 20 of its Statute.29 The Commission has repeatedly concluded that the application of regulations for the control and limitation of documentation to its own documentation would render the documents in question unfit for the purpose for which they are intended. “In the matter of legal research — and codification of international law demands legal research — limitations on the length of documents cannot be imposed.”30 This conclusion has been endorsed by the General Assembly on a number of occasions.31
At its fifty-fifth session, in 2003, the Commission recalled the particular characteristics of its work that make it inappropriate for page limits to be applied to its documentation.32 In particular, the Commission noted that it was established to assist the General Assembly in the discharge of its obligation under Article 13, paragraph 1 (a), of the Charter of the United Nations. That obligation stemmed from the recognition by those involved in drafting the Charter that, if international legal rules were to be arrived at by agreement, then in many areas of international law a necessary part of the process of arriving at agreement would involve an analysis and precise statement of State practice. Accordingly, the Commission is required by its Statute to justify its proposals to the General Assembly, and ultimately to States, on the basis of evidence of existing law and the requirements of progressive development in the light of the current needs of the international community. Thus, the draft articles or other recommendations contained in the reports of the Special Rapporteurs or the Commission’s report must be supported by extensive references to State practice, doctrine and precedents and be accompanied by extensive commentaries in accordance with article 20 of the Statute. The Commission noted that its documentation is also indispensable for the following reasons: (1) it constitutes a critical component in the process of consulting States and obtaining their views; (2) it assists individual States in understanding and interpreting the rules embodied in codification conventions; (3) it is part of the travaux preparatoires of such conventions and is frequently referred to or quoted in the diplomatic correspondence of States, in argument before the International Court of Justice and by the Court itself in its judgments; (4) it contributes to the dissemination of information about international law in accordance with the relevant United Nations programme; and (5) it forms as important a product of the Commission’s work as the draft articles themselves and enables the Commission to fulfil, in accordance with its Statute, the tasks entrusted to the Commission by the General Assembly.33
The Commission therefore confirmed its previous conclusion that it would be entirely inappropriate to attempt in advance and in abstracto to fix the maximum length of its documentation.34 At the same time, the Commission again stressed that it and its Special Rapporteurs are fully conscious of the need to achieve economies whenever possible in the overall volume of United Nations documentation and will continue to bear such considerations in mind.35
Duration of the session
The Statute of the Commission does not specify the duration of its sessions. Until 1973, the Commission’s sessions normally lasted ten weeks. In 1973, the General Assembly approved a twelve-week period for the Commission’s twenty-sixth session, in 1974.36 The General Assembly subsequently approved, “in the light of the importance of its existing work programme, a twelve-week period for the annual sessions of the International Law Commission, subject to review by the General Assembly whenever necessary”.37
Since 1974, the Commission’s sessions have normally lasted twelve weeks.38 By subsequent resolutions, most recently resolution 50/45 of 11 December 1995, the Assembly expressed the view that the requirements of the work for the progressive development of international law and its codification and the magnitude and complexity of the subjects on the agenda of the Commission made it desirable that the usual duration of its sessions be maintained.
At its forty-eighth session, in 1996, the Commission considered the duration of its sessions in connection with the examination of its work procedures requested by the General Assembly in resolution 50/45. The Commission expressed the view that, in principle, it should be able to determine on a year-to-year basis the necessary length of the following session (i.e., twelve weeks or less), having regard to the state of work and any priorities laid down by the General Assembly for the completion of particular topics. The Commission favoured reverting to the previous practice of holding ten-week sessions, with the possibility of extending this to twelve weeks in particular years, as required, and especially in the last year in a quinquennium.39 Since 1996, the Commission’s forty-ninth, fifty-fourth to fifty-seventh, fifty-ninth to sixty-second40 sessions, held in 1997, 2002 to 2005 and 2007 to 2010, respectively, consisted of ten weeks; its fiftieth session, held in 1998, consisted of eleven weeks, and its fifty-first to fifty-third, fifty-eighth and sixty-third sessions, held in 1999 to 2001, 2006 and 2011, respectively, consisted of twelve weeks.
There is no statutory provision concerning dividing the Commission’s annual session into two parts. The Commission has traditionally held a single annual session, with the exception of the seventeenth session which was held in Geneva and Monaco in 1965 and 1966.
At its forty-fourth session, in 1992, the Commission considered the possibility of dividing its annual session into two parts in the context of the review of its programme, procedures and methods of work. The Commission considered the advantages in terms of the effectiveness of its work as well as the disadvantages in terms of administrative and financial problems. The Commission concluded that the suggestion to divide its annual session into two parts had not received enough support at that time and therefore improvements in the effectiveness of its work should continue to be sought under the current arrangements, for the time being.41
At its forty-eighth session, in 1996, the Commission returned to the question of holding a split session in connection with the organization and length of its sessions. Those in favour of a single session argued that a continuous session was necessary to assure the best results on priority topics, including careful consideration of proposed draft articles, while maintaining progress and direction on other topics. Those in favour of a split session argued that it would facilitate reflection and study by members, improve productivity as a result of inter-sessional preparation for the second part, encourage informal inter-sessional work, give Special Rapporteurs time to reconsider proposals, allow concentrated work by the Drafting Committee or a working group at the end of the first part or the beginning of the second part of the session, and facilitate better and more continuous attendance of members. Noting that a split session might not be significantly more expensive than a continuous session, the Commission decided to recommend that a split session be held as an experiment in 1998 in order to assess the advantages and disadvantages in practice.42
The fiftieth session of the Commission, in 1998, was divided into two parts, with the first part of the session being held in Geneva and the second in New York. The Commission agreed to continue the practice of split sessions as of 2000, scheduling the sessions to take place in two rather evenly split parts, with a reasonable period in between.43
At its fifty-first session, in 1999, the Commission examined the advantages and disadvantages of holding split sessions in response to General Assembly resolution 53/102 of 8 December 1998. The Commission concluded that a split session was more efficient and effective and facilitated the uninterrupted attendance of its members based on its experience in 1998. The Commission further concluded that there were no disadvantages to a split session and that any resulting cost increase should be more than offset by increased productivity and cost-saving measures. In particular, the Commission suggested adjusting the organization of work during sessions so that one or two weeks at the end of the first part of the session and/or the beginning of the second part of the session could be devoted exclusively to the meetings which require the attendance of a limited number of the Commission’s members.44 This measure was put into effect at the fifty-third session of the Commission, in 2001, pursuant to General Assembly resolutions 54/111 of 9 December 1999 and 55/152 of 12 December 2000.45
At its sixty-third session, in 2011, the Commission stressed the importance of retaining split sessions for the efficiency and effectiveness of its work and recalled its decision of 1999 on the matter. It further emphasized its view that only a split session allowed sufficient time for the preparation of the commentaries on the texts adopted during the first part of the session, which was necessary for the Commission to fulfil its mandate effectively. In addition, given that several members of the Commission might not be able to attend the entire ten- or twelve-week duration of an undivided session, the efficacy of the Commission would be hampered if the undivided session were to be reintroduced.46
The Commission reached these conclusions on the understanding that it would maintain a flexible need-based approach to the nature and duration of its sessions.47 The Commission’s fifty-second to sixty-third sessions, from 2000 to 2011, were each held in two parts.
The Commission has held all of its sessions in Geneva, except for its first session, which was held in New York (at Lake Success) in 1949; its sixth session, which was held at the headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris in 1954; the second part of its seventeenth session, which was held in Monaco in January 1966; and the second part of its fiftieth session, which was held in New York in 1998.
Article 12 of the Statute initially provided that the Commission would meet at the Headquarters of the United Nations, in New York, while recognizing the right of the Commission to hold meetings at other places after consultation with the Secretary-General. However, the Commission decided, after consulting with the Secretary-General, to hold its second to seventh sessions, from 1950 to 1955, in Geneva.48 The Commission preferred Geneva to New York because its atmosphere and law library were more favourable for the studies of a body of legal experts and because its location simplified arrangements for its sessions by the Secretariat.49 In 1955, the General Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Commission,50 amended article 12 of the Statute to provide for the Commission to meet at the European Office of the United Nations at Geneva.51
In introducing the practice of split sessions, the Commission has considered holding the second part of its split sessions in New York, towards the middle of the quinquennium, in order to enhance the relationship between the Commission and the General Assembly and its Sixth Committee.52
The International Law Seminar
Since 1965, the International Law Seminar has been held in conjunction with the Commission’s sessions, and many hundreds of young professionals have been introduced to the United Nations and to the work of the Commission through the seminar. During the seminar, the participants observe plenary meetings of the Commission, attend specially arranged lectures, and participate in small-group discussions on specific topics.
1 See Rule 161 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly.
2 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1949, Report of the General Assembly, para. 5.
3 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1979, vol. II (Part One), document A/CN.4/325, para. 7.
4 Similarly, while a topic may be on the programme of work of the Commission, it might not be on its agenda for the session in the hiatus following the adoption of draft articles on first reading when the draft articles are before Governments for their comments and observations.
5 See rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly.
6 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II (Part Two), para. 216.
7 See rule 106 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly.
8 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1979, vol. II (Part One), document A/CN.4/325, para. 8. See also rules 108 (Quorum), 125 (Majority required) and 126 (Meaning of the phrase “members present and voting”) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly.
9 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1979, vol. II (Part One), document A/CN.4/325, para. 8.
10 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 207–210.
12 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II (Part Two), para. 210.
13 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1979, vol. II (Part One), document A/CN.4/325, para. 65.
14 The recent practice of the Commission has been to provide a more concise description of the history of the consideration of each topic, in the introductory parts of the relevant chapters of its report.
15 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1979, vol. II (Part One), document A/CN.4/325, para. 66.
17 The Commission’s report on its first session and as of its twenty-first session is published as Supplement No. 10 of the Official Records of the General Assembly. The Commission’s report on its second session was published as Supplement No. 12 and on its third to twentieth sessions as Supplement No. 9 of the Official Records of the General Assembly. The report is subsequently published in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission (volume II, except for the 1949 Yearbook which consists of only one volume) together with a check-list of the documents issued during the session.
18 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1979, vol. II (Part One), document A/CN.4/325, para. 64.
19 The summary records of Commission meetings are provided in provisional form to its members and are published in final form in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission (in volume I).
20 See General Assembly resolutions 32/151 of 19 December 1977, 34/141 of 17 December 1979, 35/163 of 15 December 1980, 36/114 of 10 December 1981, 37/111 of 16 December 1982 and all subsequent resolutions on the annual reports of the Commission to the General Assembly. See also Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980, vol. II (Part Two), para. 190.
21 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 188–190. In 2004, the Commission recalled that on several occasions it had considered the summary records to be an inescapable requirement for the procedures and methods of its work. In its view, “[t]hey constitute the equivalent of travaux préparatoires and are an indispensable part of the process of progressive development of international law and its codification. They are vital for the Commission’s work.” See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/59/10), para. 367, and ibid., Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10 and Add.1), para. 403.
22 The General Assembly recalled its resolution 176 (II) of 21 November 1947, in which it stated, inter alia, that “one of the most effective means of furthering the development of international law consists in promoting public interest in this subject and using the media of education and publicity to familiarize the peoples with the principles and rules that govern international relations”.
24 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10 and Add.1), para. 407.
25 For the Commission’s discussions, see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1977, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 124–126; ibid., 1980, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 191 and 192; ibid., 1982, vol. II (Part Two), para. 271; and ibid., 2003, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 440–443.
26 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1977, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 125 and 126.
27 The Commission indicated its understanding that regulations on the preparation of documents on the basis of Governments’ replies to a questionnaire or of submissions of the agencies and programmes of the United Nations do not affect the obligation of the Secretary-General under the Statute to publish in extenso, and in the languages of the Commission, all such replies whenever the work of the Commission and its procedures and methods so require. See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980, vol. II (Part Two), para. 191.
28 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1982, vol. II (Part Two), para. 271.
29 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980, vol. II (Part Two), para. 192.
30 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1977, vol. II (Part Two), para. 123; and ibid., 1980, vol. II (Part Two), para. 192.
31 See General Assembly resolutions 32/151 of 19 December 1977, 34/141 of 17 December 1979, 35/163 of 15 December 1980, 36/114 of 10 December 1981, 37/111 of 16 December 1982, 38/138 of 19 December 1983 and all subsequent resolutions on the annual report of the Commission to the General Assembly.
32 The Commission referred to the following documentation: its annual reports, the reports of Special Rapporteurs as well as various related research projects, studies and other working documents (see Analytical Guide).
33 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2003, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 440–442.
34 See ibid., para. 443; Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/61/10), para. 263 (reiterating “the importance of providing and making available all evidence of State practice and other sources of international law relevant to the performance of the Commission’s function of progressive development and codification of international law. While [the Commission was] aware of the advantages of being as concise as possible, it strongly believe[d] that an a priori limitation [could not] be placed on the length of its documentation and research projects, in particular reports of Special Rapporteurs”); ibid., Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/63/10), para. 359; ibid., Sixty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/64/10), para. 232; ibid., Sixty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/65/10), para. 399; and ibid., Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10 and Add.1), para. 402.
35 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1982, vol. II (Part Two), para. 271, subsequently confirmed in ibid., 2003, vol. II (Part Two), para. 443.
36 General Assembly resolution 3071 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973.
37 General Assembly resolution 3315 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974.
38 The thirty-eighth session, in 1986, was reduced to ten weeks for budgetary reasons. In response to the view expressed by the Commission, the twelve-week session was restored the following year. See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1986, vol. II (Part Two), para. 252 and General Assembly resolution 41/81 of 3 December 1986. The fifty-seventh session, in 2005, was reduced to eleven weeks as a cost-saving measure. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixtieth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/60/10), para. 497.
39 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 148 (m) and 224–226; and Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10 and Add.1), para. 389.
40 In 2005, the Commission decided to reduce the length of its fifty-seventh session by one week as a cost-saving measure. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixtieth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/60/10), para. 497.
41 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1992, vol. II (Part Two), para. 376.
42 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 148 (n) and 227–232.
43 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1998, vol. II (Part Two), para. 562.
44 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1999, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 633–639.
45 See ibid., 2001, vol. II (Part Two), para. 260.
46 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10 and Add.1), paras. 389–391.
47 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1999, vol. II (Part Two), paras. 635 and 638.
48 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1949, Report to the General Assembly, para. 40; ibid., 1950, vol. II, document A/1316, para. 22; ibid., 1951, vol. II, document A/1858, para. 91; ibid., 1952, vol. II, document A/2163, para. 55; ibid., 1953, vol. II, document A/2456, para. 173; ibid., 1954, vol. II, document A/2693, para. 79; and ibid., 1955, vol. II, document A/2934, para. 29. The Commission initially decided to hold its sixth session in Geneva. However, this session was held in Paris. See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1954, vol. II, document A/2693, para. 1.
49 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1953, vol. II, document A/2456, para. 173; and ibid., 1955, vol. II, document A/2934, para. 26.
50 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1955, vol. II, document A/2934, para. 25.
51 General Assembly resolution 984 (X) of 3 December 1955.
52 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2000, vol. II (Part Two), para. 734; and Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/66/10 and Add.1), para. 388.