India has urged countries negotiating a proposed international convention on crimes against humanity to ensure that terrorist acts meeting the required legal threshold are appropriately reflected in the framework. The position was presented by R. Mythili, Counsellor and Legal Adviser at India’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, during discussions at the 81st session of the UN General Assembly’s Sixth Committee.
The discussion concerns the development of a legally binding international instrument aimed at strengthening the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. India’s intervention highlighted the need to address grave atrocities while preserving the role of national legal systems and respecting the sovereignty of states.
Editorial Insight
Key Highlights
Important points readers should notice.
The proposed convention could shape international cooperation on some of the gravest crimes. How the treaty defines covered conduct, allocates responsibility and interacts with domestic courts will affect both its practical application and its acceptance among member states. India’s position highlights two connected priorities: addressing serious terrorist violence within an appropriate legal framework and ensuring that a new international instrument respects national legal systems and complements existing mechanisms.
Location: United Nations General Assembly’s Sixth Committee, New York.
Authority/Organisation: India’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations; UN General Assembly.
Action Taken: R. Mythili presented India’s position during discussions on the proposed convention, including the importance of national jurisdiction, state sovereignty and complementarity with existing legal mechanisms.
Impact: The intervention adds to ongoing negotiations over the scope and legal design of a proposed international treaty. It is not an adopted UN decision or a final treaty provision.
India argued that terrorist acts meeting the requisite threshold should not be overlooked when the international community develops rules for addressing the most serious crimes. The position forms part of a broader legal debate over how the proposed convention should define crimes against humanity and how its provisions should interact with existing international and domestic law.
Why India wants terrorist acts addressed
Terrorism can involve deliberate violence against civilians and other serious abuses. India’s position is that acts meeting the legal threshold for crimes against humanity should be appropriately covered by the proposed framework.
Editorial Analysis
Why This Matters
The proposed convention could shape international cooperation on some of the gravest crimes. How the treaty defines covered conduct, allocates responsibility and interacts with domestic courts will affect both its practical application and its acceptance among member states. India’s position highlights two connected priorities: addressing serious terrorist violence within an appropriate legal framework and ensuring that a new international instrument respects national legal systems and complements existing mechanisms.
However, the distinction between terrorism and crimes against humanity is important. Not every terrorist offence automatically qualifies as a crime against humanity under international law. Classification depends on the applicable legal definition and the circumstances of the conduct, including whether the required elements of the offence are established.
The debate is therefore not simply about attaching a new label to every terrorist attack. It concerns how a future treaty should define the relevant crimes, establish responsibilities and support accountability while remaining consistent with international legal principles.
India stresses national jurisdiction and sovereignty
India also emphasised that states have the primary responsibility to prevent, investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity through their national legal and judicial systems.
The position gives importance to territorial and national jurisdiction, alongside respect for state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. India has argued that a new international convention should complement existing legal mechanisms rather than reproduce them without careful examination.
These questions are significant because an international treaty must be sufficiently clear to secure broad acceptance among countries with different legal systems. Negotiators must consider how the proposed rules would interact with domestic criminal laws, existing treaties and other international obligations.
What is the proposed UN convention?
The proposed convention is intended to establish a legally binding international framework for the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. The process is separate from the existing international legal instruments that address genocide, war crimes and other serious offences.
The United Nations General Assembly has established a process involving preparatory committee discussions in 2026 and 2027, followed by a planned conference of plenipotentiaries in 2028 and 2029 to work towards elaborating and concluding a convention.
The framework is still under negotiation. The final text, including the precise scope of covered offences and the obligations states would accept, will depend on the outcome of the intergovernmental process.
Why the negotiations matter
A future convention could influence how states cooperate on prevention, investigation, prosecution and accountability for crimes against humanity. The negotiations also raise questions about the relationship between international standards and national legal authority.
For India, the central challenge is to ensure that the treaty addresses grave atrocities effectively while avoiding duplication, respecting national jurisdictions and securing broad international acceptance.
The latest intervention records India’s position in the negotiations; it does not mean the UN has adopted India’s proposal or that a final treaty has been agreed.
