This section is devoted to substantiating the necessity of responding to the work of the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC). The rationale is fourfold. First, the conclusions of the ILC are increasingly invoked as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law under Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Second, in the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, the ICJ emphasized that States are expected to respond to the ILC’s work, and failure to do so may be interpreted as evidence of opinio juris. Third, over the past decade, the ILC has accelerated its activities, producing outcomes three times faster than during its previous sixty years. Fourth, the ILC’s recent outputs address particularly significant issues such as jus cogens norms, subsequent agreements, subsequent practice in the interpretation of treaties, subsidiary means for the determination of international law, and other matters. In many of these works, the ILC pursues an excessively progressive approach that may run counter to the traditional understanding of international law and the interests of States. The section further highlights the absence of any formal reaction by the Republic of Kazakhstan to the ILC’s work and, in this regard, calls for Kazakhstan’s active engagement.