Joint Nordic Statement by Ms. Anna Pála Sverrisdóttir,
Director of International Law, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Iceland
Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity
22 January 2026

 




Good morning Mr. Chair, good morning all colleagues.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden – and my own country, Iceland.

The Nordics have previously made comments in statements and written submissions, to which we refer. Given the importance of this topic we are more than happy to continue discussing and engaging with colleagues from around the world. We wish to underline the following on Draft Articles 2, 3 and 4 that are the focus of Cluster 2.

Starting with the definition, the Nordics continue to express strong support for the International Law Commission‘s approach to use the definition in Article 7 of the Rome Statute as the basis of Draft Article 2. We would like to underline in this context that although the Nordics encourage universal membership of the Statute, it is up to each State to decide on whether to become a member of the International Criminal Court. The future agreement on Crimes against humanity will be a separate instrument and the two are of a different nature, even if they will complement one another. In plain terms: The future agreement will not be a backdoor to the ICC. The Nordics see it as important to convey this message to colleagues from states currently not members of the Court. What we know, on the other hand, is that none of us want impunity for crimes against humanity. This is why it is important to harmonize. Let us not forget that the Rome Statute reflects customary international law, and that the ILC deliberately chose to build the Draft Articles on existing, widely adhered-to treaties.

Chair,

Draft Article 2 establishes, as a general precondition for an act to qualify as a crime against humanity, that it must be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. The Nordics support this formulation and underscore that the attack need only be either “widespread” or “systematic.” As confirmed by the jurisprudence of both the ICTY and the ICTR, these requirements are disjunctive rather than conjunctive.

Further on the definition, the Nordics welcome the decision of the ILC to not retain the Rome Statute definition of „gender“, which we believe does not reflect current realities and content of international law. During the resumed 6th committee sessions, it was pointed out that this also leaves more space for each state for its own national definition.

The sobering truth is that gender-based atrocity crimes continue to be committed and the future convention holds much potential for combatting them. In addition to the list of acts that may constitute crimes against humanity, the Nordics have expressed openness towards incorporating other gender-related crimes than the existing ones.

In light of developments in international law, both case law and state practice, we have furthermore expressed support for reviewing some of the definitions in Draft Article 2, including „forced pregnancy, „enforced disappearance“ and „persecution“. 

Further on Draft Article 2, the Nordic countries are supportive of the inclusion of the „without prejudice“ reference contained in paragraph 3, which makes for the possibility of more ambitious national legislation and potential future developments in international law, such as through other legal instruments.

Lastly, on Draft Article 2, we note that compared to Article 22 paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute, the Draft Articles do not mention that the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. Neither do the Draft Articles include a provision that draws on Article 21 paragraph 3 of the Rome Statute which refers to the role of international human rights law for interpretation and entails an important non-discrimination clause. Nor do the Draft Articles contain a general provision on the mental element required for criminal responsibility comparable to Article 30 of the Rome Statute. We would be grateful to hear more about the deliberations held by the ILC in this respect, Mr. Special Rapporteur.

Chair, 

I will now move on to Draft Articles 3 and 4. The two articles are prime examples of how the future agreement can make a highly important contribution to fill the gap in international treaty law relating to States‘ obligations to prevent and punish crimes against humanity.
In Draft Article 3, the Nordics support the phrasing which recognizes that crimes are committed by individuals, but that their acts that constitute crimes against humanity may be attributable to States under the rules of State responsibility. Further, we welcome the explicit mentioning of the general obligation of States „not to engage in acts that constitute“ crimes against humanity. 

The Nordics welcome paragraph 2 of Article 3 which expressly states that crimes against humanity must be prevented and punished. We must all be mindful that crimes against humanity are horrendous international crimes, and that the other side of the coin is unbearable suffering of victims and survivors. In order to ensure the principle of legality, we suggest that the obligation to punish crimes against humanity include a reference to the definition of the crimes as provided in Article 2. 

In the context of prevention, the content of Article 4 is of paramount importance. Prevention must be at the heart of efforts to make crimes against humanity a part of the past. The Nordics reiterate support for even more concrete text on the nature and content of the obligation of prevention, in order to strenghten how Draft Article 4 operationalizes the general prevention obligation contained in Draft Article 3. We would be willing to engage in dialogue on adding a monitoring mechanism. The Nordics further reiterate support for robust obligations in terms of cooperation between states, not just in general but specifically as regards prevention of crimes against humanity.