I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak before you today. My thanks in particular to the Government of Ecuador for helping to arrange for this presentation.

My topic today concerns "The International Law Commission's Proposal for a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity."

I. What are Crimes against Humanity?

As is well-known, "crimes against humanity" are defined as murder, extermination, torture, enforced disappearance, sexual violence and various other inhuman acts "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack." There are certain important features of these crimes that I would like to highlight.

First, crimes against humanity are directed against a civilian population and hence has a certain scale or systematic nature that generally extends beyond isolated incidents of violence or crimes committed for purely private purposes.

Second, crimes against humanity concern the most heinous acts of violence and persecution known to humankind.

Third, crimes against humanity are may be connected with an armed conflict, but that need not be the case; crimes against humanity can occur in peacetime.

Fourth, crimes against humanity can be committed within the territory of a single State or can be committed across borders.

Finally, Crimes against humanity are can be committed by a government, but can also be committed by other actors, including rebel movements, militias, or terrorist organizations.

The concept of crimes against humanity was first established as a part of the international military tribunals established at both Nurnberg and Tokyo, and then was replicated for the ICTY and ICTR, and now appears as Article of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. Such steps have firmly entrenched "crimes against humanity" in the pantheon of crimes of the greatest international concern, alongside genocide and war crimes.

II. Continued Commission of Crimes against Humanity

Today While the development of the concept of crimes against humanity is an important intellectual achievement of the past century, and the development of international courts and tribunals an important institutional development, it is sadly the case that crimes against humanity continue to occur today, on a daily basis, in various parts of the globe. With this audience, I do not need to run through all the places in which such crimes are occurring, as you can read about them every day in the newspaper or online.

III. Need to Develop National Criminal Laws and Jurisdiction

Instead, the key question is what more might be done to prevent and punish them? While continued efforts to develop and strengthen international courts and tribunals are warranted, it would appear that much greater attention now should be paid to the harnessing of national laws and institutions, as a complement to international jurisdictions, so as to deny any refuge worldwide to alleged offenders and, in so doing, hopefully to deter such behavior.

Under the influence of the Rome Statute, in recent years several States have adopted or amended national laws that criminalize crimes against humanity, as well as other crimes. Yet many States, both that are party to and not party to the Rome Statute, have no such national law.

George Washington University - my home institution - completed at study in 2013 that reached several conclusions.

First, it found that only 40 percent of States actually possess a national law specifically on "crimes against humanity". Only 50 of Rome Statute parties possessed such a national law.

Second, for the States that possessed a national law specifically on "crimes against humanity," the OW Law Study analyzed closely the provisions ofthose laws.

Of those States, only 29 percent adopted verbatim the text of Article 7 of the Rome Statute when defining the crime. Instead, most States that possessed a national law specifically on "crimes against humanity" deviated from the components of Article in important ways.

Third, the 2013 study analyzed whether the States that possess a national law specifically on "crimes against humanity" could exercise jurisdiction over a nonnational offender who commits the crime abroad against non-nationals. The study concluded that most States could not do so.

The unevenness in the adoption of national laws relating to crimes against humanity has collateral consequences with respect to inter-State cooperation in seeking to sanction offences. Existing bilateral and multilateral agreements on mutual legal assistance and on extradition typically require that the offence at issue be criminalized in the jurisdictions of both the requesting and requested States (referred to as "double" or "dual criminality"); if their respective national laws are not comparable, then cooperation usually is not required. With a large number of States having no national law on crimes against humanity, and with significant discrepancies among the national laws of States that have criminalized the offence, there at present exist considerable impediments to inter-State cooperation.

IV. International Law Commission's Project on Crimes against Humanity

The unevenness in national laws and the ability to exercise national jurisdiction with respect to crimes against humanity suggests that now is a propitious time for the development a treaty that would address such matters.

Consequently, the U.N. International Law Commission in 2014 added the topic of "crimes against humanity" to its current program of work and appointed me as special rapporteur.

In 2015, I submitted a first report to the Commission, which led it to adopt four draft articles with commentary.

In 2016, I submitted a second report, which led to the Commission's adoption of an additional six draft articles with commentary.

In 2017, I submitted a third report, which led to the Commission's adoption of a final five draft articles, a new paragraph for an existing draft article, a draft preamble, and a draft annex.

Since these various pieces constituted a complete first draft of the project, the Commission reviewed the entire text in 2017 "on first reading" and approved it.

All told, the draft articles address: scope (article 1); general obligation (article 2); definition of crimes against humanity (article 3); obligation of prevention (article 4); non-refoulement (article 5); criminalization under national law (article 6); establishment of national jurisdiction (article 7); investigation (article 8); preliminary measures when an alleged offender is present (article 9); aut dedere aut judicare (article 10); fair treatment of the alleged offender (article 11); victims, witnesses and others (article 12); extradition (article 13); mutual legal assistance (article 14 and the annex); and settlement of disputes (article 15).

Having completed a full first draft, the Commission also decided in 2017 to transmit the draft articles through the U.N. Secretary-General to governments, international organizations, and others for comments and observations, requesting that they be submitted by no later than 1 December 2018.

Consequently, the Commission is currently in "listening mode," receiving written and oral comments from others regarding to the strengths and weaknesses of its work.

Based on views received, the Commission in 2019 will be in a position to modify the draft articles (and the commentary) as appropriate, on "second reading," at which point the Commission's work will be completed.

Further, the Commission may then transmit the final draft articles to the General Assembly, along with a recommendation as to next steps, such as the elaboration of a convention on the basis of the draft articles, either by the Assembly itself or by an international conference of States.

V. Concluding Thoughts on the Prospects for A New Convention

In conclusion, it is possible that, as of late 2019, the U.N. General Assembly will have before it draft articles with commentary serving as the basis for the negotiation and adoption by States of a new Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity.

At present, it is unclear if States will move forward with such a negotiation and, if so, on what time frame. Moreover, even if a convention is successfully negotiated and adopted, further tasks will remain. States must sign and ratify the convention, hopefully on a widespread basis comparable to the 1948 Convention against Genocide and the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Even then, States must implement their obligations under the Convention; they must take the steps necessary to enact national laws as required by the Convention, and take other steps that assist in the prevention and punishment of such cnmes.

None of these steps is guaranteed and none of them will be easy to achieve.

But as an international community, we must continue to strive to build a system of international law that stops atrocities from occurring, using whatever lawful means are available to us. And I say this not just to the experienced lawyers present today, but to the students as well, for the ultimate success of this initiative will tum in large part on the commitment and hard work of the next generation of international lawyers.