EU Statement – UN General Assembly 4th Committee: Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (item 124)

Chair, colleagues, members of the Bureau,

It is an honour to take the floor on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.

The European Union thanks the Chair for convening this discussion on the working methods of the Fourth Committee, and for the initiative to provide a structured basis. We consider this an important opportunity to take stock of existing practices and identify practical ways to make our work more effective and efficient.

The revitalization of the General Assembly, as set out in resolution 79/327, calls on all of us to ensure that the Assembly and its Main Committees fulfil their mandates effectively. This is particularly relevant in the broader context of the UN80 Initiative and our collective efforts to make the United Nations more efficient, effective and fit for purpose.

The European Union believes that improving our working methods should build on practices that have already demonstrated their value, while remaining open to practical improvements. In this regard, we would like to highlight a number of points.

First, we should preserve and consolidate established good practices.

We welcome the practices that have contributed to the efficient functioning of this Committee, including the punctual start of meetings, adherence to speaking time limits, the use of the flashing light system, timely availability of documentation and the effective use of digital tools, particularly e-deleGATE.

We also value the flexibility to move agenda items forward as the programme of work progresses, as well as timely and transparent communication of changes to the schedule. These practices allow delegations and the Secretariat to plan their work more effectively and make the best use of available meeting time.

We would also underline the importance of maintaining close coordination between the Main Committees, particularly the Fourth and First Committees, to avoid parallel meetings and minimise the burden on delegations, especially smaller ones.

At the same time, efficiency must go hand in hand with multilingualism. The timely availability of documentation in all official languages, including draft resolutions, is essential to ensuring the equal participation of all Member States. Efficiency measures should not come at the expense of the multilingual character of our Organisation.

We also regret the discontinuation of press releases covering the Committee's work. These provide an important record of its discussions and help make its work accessible to a wider audience. We encourage exploring ways to ensure their continuation.

Second, we should build on the positive new practices introduced in recent sessions.

We welcome the Chair's initiative to circulate a non-paper ahead of the discussion on working methods, providing delegations with a structured basis for reflection.

We also consider the immediate consideration of substantive agenda items following the organisational meeting, as well as the circulation of the programme of work in a table format, useful practices that should be maintained in future sessions. We encourage the regular updating of the programme of work on the Committee's website.

In addition, we see merit in strengthening institutional memory through a digital repository of the Committee's working methods and established practices, including contributions from outgoing Bureaux. This could facilitate continuity between successive Bureaux and provide delegations with an accessible reference.

Third, we should remain open to further practical improvements.

In this regard, we would like to offer a few suggestions for consideration.

On the consideration of decolonisation items, the European Union attaches great importance to the participation of petitioners and to ensuring that their perspectives are heard and meaningfully reflected in our deliberations.

We would therefore suggest exploring the possibility of holding an uninterrupted joint general debate on the decolonisation items, with petitioners heard before Member States take the floor. This would allow delegations to take their perspectives into account when preparing their interventions, contributing to a more coherent and substantive discussion. It could also facilitate better planning by delegations and more efficient arrangements by the Bureau and Secretariat, including with regard to interpretation and security.

We would also be open to further considering the proposed one-step approach to the consideration of requests for hearings by petitioners, provided that it allows delegations sufficient opportunity to raise questions and address any concerns before decisions are taken.

Furthermore, we encourage delegations to exercise restraint in proposing additional agenda items. Focus and prioritisation are essential if we are to avoid overburdening the Committee and ensure that sufficient time and attention are devoted to its substantive work.

We also see value in continuing discussions on how to make better use of meeting time, including the organisation of explanations of vote and statements before and after action, while preserving the ability of all Member States to participate meaningfully in the Committee's work.

Chair, colleagues,

Revitalisation is not an exercise in procedure for its own sake. It is about ensuring that our working methods allow this Committee to fulfil its responsibilities effectively, make the best use of our collective resources and deliver meaningful outcomes.

The European Union stands ready to engage constructively in this process.

Thank you.