TyroCity: International Organizations

Jurisdiction of Court

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 193 UN members are automatically parties to the Court’s statute.[11] Non-UN members may also become parties to the Court’s statute under the Article 93(2) procedure. For example, before becoming a UN member state, Switzerland used this procedure in 1948 to become a party. And Nauru became a party in 1988. Once a state is a party to the Court’s statute, it is entitled to participate in cases before the Court. However, being a party to the statute does not automatically give the Court jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties. The issue of jurisdiction is considered in the two types of ICJ cases: contentious issues and advisory opinions.

Contentious issues

In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases, although the Court may receive information from public international organizations. This does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings the case against another. For example, a state may, in case of “diplomatic protection”, bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations.[12]

Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the Court in contentious cases. (See Procedure below.) The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent. Article 36 outlines four bases on which the Court’s jurisdiction may be founded.

First, 36(1) provides that parties may refer cases to the Court (jurisdiction founded on “special agreement” or “compromis”). This method is based on explicit consent rather than true compulsory jurisdiction. It is, perhaps, the most effective basis for the Court’s jurisdiction because the parties concerned have a desire for the dispute to be resolved by the Court and are thus more likely to comply with the Court’s judgment.
Second, 36(1) also gives the Court jurisdiction over “matters specifically provided for … in treaties and conventions in force”. Most modern treatieswill contain a compromissory clause, providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ.[13] Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been as effective as cases founded on special agreement, since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the Court and may refuse to comply with a judgment. For example, during the Iran hostage crisis, Iran refused to participate in a case brought by the US based on a compromissory clause contained in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, nor did it comply with the judgment.[14] Since the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined. Many modern treaties set out their own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of arbitration.[15]
Third, Article 36(2) allows states to make optional clause declarations accepting the Court’s jurisdiction. The label “compulsory” which is sometimes placed on Article 36(2) jurisdiction is misleading since declarations by states are voluntary. Furthermore, many declarations contain reservations, such as exclusion from jurisdiction certain types of disputes (“ratione materia”).[16]The principle of reciprocity may further limit jurisdiction. As of February 2011, sixty-six states had a declaration in force.[17] Of the permanent Security Council members, only the United Kingdom has a declaration. In the Court’s early years, most declarations were made by industrialized countries. Since the Nicaragua Case, declarations made by developing countries have increased, reflecting a growing confidence in the Court since the 1980s. Industrialized countries however have sometimes increased exclusions or removed their declarations in recent years. Examples include the USA, as mentioned previously and Australia who modified their declaration in 2002 to exclude disputes on maritime boundaries (most likely to prevent an impending challenge from East Timor who gained their independence two months later).[18]
Finally, 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Permanent Court of International Justice’s statute. Article 37 of the Statute similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ.
In addition, the Court may have jurisdiction on the basis of tacit consent (forum prorogatum). In the absence of clear jurisdiction under Article 36, jurisdiction will be established if the respondent accepts ICJ jurisdiction explicitly or simply pleads on the merits. The notion arose in the Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (1949) in which the Court held that a letter from Albania stating that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction.

Advisory opinion

An advisory opinion is a function of the Court open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies. On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. Advisory Opinions were intended as a means by which UN agencies could seek the Court’s help in deciding complex legal issues that might fall under their respective mandates.

In principle, the Court’s advisory opinions are only consultative in character, but they are influential and widely respected. Whilst certain instruments or regulations can provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states, they are inherently non-binding under the Statute of the Court. This non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court’s authoritative views on important issues of international law and, in arriving at them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states.

An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.[19]

Advisory Opinions have often been controversial because the questions asked are controversial or the case was pursued as an indirect way of bringing what is really a contentious case before the Court. Examples of advisory opinions can be found in the section advisory opinions in the List of International Court of Justice cases article. One such well-known advisory opinion is the Nuclear Weapons Case.

The Origin of the UN

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Atlantic Charter – August 14 1941
Washington Declaration – January 1 1942
Moscow Declaration – Oct 30 1943
USSR, US, UK and China
Dumbarton Oaks – August to October 1944
Yalta Conference – February 1945
US, UK and USSR
San Francisco Conference -April 25 1945

The Intent of the Planners

“…all of the nations of the world…must come to the abandonment of the use of force…”
“…the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security…”
“…the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement, and social security.” [Atlantic Charter]

San Francisco Conference - April 25 1945

50 delegations in attendance at the United Nation’s Conference on International Organisation [UNCIO]
UN Charter was signed by all delegations on June 26.
Smaller powers achieved important alterations to the Dumbarton Oaks plan.
The UNGA was given broader powers.
The status of EcoSoc was raised.
Limitations were placed on the powers of the UNSC to call into use military forces of non members of the Security Council, by allowing those non members to attend relevant SC Meetings

SAARC Charter

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

We, the Heads of State or Government of BANGLADESH, BHUTAN, INDIA, MALDIVES, NEPAL, PAKISTAN and SRI LANKA;

Desirous of promoting peace, stability, amity and progress in the region through strict adherence to the principles of the UNITED NATIONS CHARTER and NON-ALIGNMENT, particularly respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, national independence, non-use of force and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and peaceful settlement of all disputes;
Conscious that in an increasingly interdependent world, the objectives of peace, freedom, social justice and economic prosperity are best achieved in the SOUTH ASIAN region by fostering mutual understanding, good neighbourly relations and meaningful cooperation among the Member States which are bound by ties of history and culture;
Aware of the common problems, interests and aspirations of the peoples of SOUTH ASIA and the need for joint action and enhanced cooperation within their respective political and economic systems and cultural traditions;
Convinced that regional cooperation among the countries of SOUTH ASIA is mutually beneficial, desirable and necessary for promoting the welfare and improving the quality of life of the peoples of the region;
Convinced further that economic, social and technical cooperation among the countries of SOUTH ASIA would contribute significantly to national and collective self-reliance;
Recognising that increased cooperation, contacts and exchanges among the countries of the region will contribute to the promotion of friendship and understanding among their peoples;
Recalling the DECLARATION signed by their Foreign Ministers in NEW DELHI on August 2, 1983 and noting the progress achieved in regional cooperation;
Reaffirming their determination to promote such cooperation within an institutional framework;

DO HEREBY AGREE to establish an organisation to be known as SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION hereinafter referred to as the ASSOCIATION, with the following objectives, principles, institutional and financial arrangements:

Objectives

The objectives of the ASSOCIATION shall be:

Article I

to promote the welfare of the peoples of SOUTH ASIA and to improve their quality of life;
to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realise their full potentials;
to promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of SOUTH ASIA; d) to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another’s problems;
to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields;
to strengthen cooperation with other developing countries;
to strengthen cooperation among themselves in international forums on matters of common interests; and
to cooperate with international and regional organisations with similar aims and purposes.

Article II: PRINCIPLES

Cooperation within the framework of the ASSOCIATION shall be based on respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and mutual benefit.
Such cooperation shall not be a substitute for bilateral and multilateral cooperation but shall complement them.
Such cooperation shall not be inconsistent with bilateral and multilateral obligations.

**Article III: MEETINGS OF THE HEADS OF STATE OR GOVERNMENT

The Heads of State or Government shall meet once a year or more often as and when considered necessary by the Member States.

Article IV: COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

A Council of Ministers consisting of the Foreign Ministers of the Member States shall be established with the following functions:
- formulation of the policies of the ASSOCIATION;
- review of the progress of cooperation under the ASSOCIATION;
- decision on new areas of cooperation;
- establishment of additional mechanism under the ASSOCIATION as deemed necessary;
- decision on other matters of general interest to the ASSOCIATION.
The Council of Ministers shall meet twice a year. Extraordinary session of the Council may be held by agreement among the Member States.

Article V: STANDING COMMITTEE

1.The Standing Committee comprising the Foreign Secretaries shall have the following functions:

overall monitoring and coordination of programme of cooperation;
approval of projects and programmes, and the modalities of their financing;
determination of inter-sectoral priorities;
mobilisation of regional and external resources;
identification of new areas of cooperation based on appropriate studies.

The Standing Committee shall meet as often as deemed necessary.
The Standing Committee shall submit periodic reports to the Council of Ministers and make reference to it as and when necessary for decisions on policy matters.

Article VI: TECHNICAL COMMITTEES

Technical Committees comprising representatives of Member States shall be responsible for the implementation, coordination and monitoring of the programmes in their respective areas of cooperation.
They shall have the following terms of reference:
- determination of the potential and the scope of regional cooperation in agreed areas;
- formulation of programmes and preparation of projects;
- determination of financial implications of sectoral programmes;
- formulation of recommendations regarding apportionment of costs;
- implementation and coordination of sectoral programmes;
- monitoring of progress in implementation.
The Technical Committees shall submit periodic reports to the Standing Committee.
The Chairmanship of the Technical Committees shall normally rotate among Member States in alphabetical order every two years.
The Technical Committees may, inter-alia, use the following mechanisms and modalities, if and when considered necessary:
- meetings of heads of national technical agencies;
- meetings of experts in specific fields;
- contact amongst recognised centres of excellence in the region.

Article VII: ACTION COMMITTEES

The Standing Committee may set up Action Committees comprising Member States concerned with implementation of projects involving more than two but not all Member States.

Article VIII: SECRETARIAT

There shall be a Secretariat of the ASSOCIATION.

Article IX: FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

1.The contribution of each Member State towards financing of the activities of the ASSOCIATION shall be voluntary.

Each Technical Committee shall make recommendations for the apportionment of costs of implementing the programmes proposed by it.
In case sufficient financial resources cannot be mobilized within the region for funding activities of the ASSOCIATION, external financing from appropriate sources may be mobilized with the approval of or by the Standing Committee.

Article X

General Provisions

Decisions at all levels shall be taken on the basis of unanimity.
Bilateral and contentious issues shall be excluded from the deliberations.

IN FAITH WHEREOF We Have Set Our Hands And Seals Hereunto. DONE In DHAKA, BANGLADESH,On This The Eighth Day Of December Of The Year One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Five.

Hussain Muhammad Ershad
-PRESIDENT OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH

Jigme Singye Wangchuk
-KING OF BHUTAN

Rajiv Gandhi
-PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom
-PRESIDENT OF THE REBUPLIC OF MALDIVES

Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev
-KING OF NEPAL

Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq
-PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

Junius Richard Jayewardene
-PRESIDENT OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

Introduction to SAARC

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

In the late 1970’s, president Ziaur Rahman, proposed the creation of trade bloc consisting of South Asian countries. The Bangladeshi proposal was accepted by India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka during meeting held in Colombo in 1981. In August 1983, the leaders adopted the Declaration on South Asian Regional Cooperation during a summit which was held in New Delhi

The heads of Seven South Asian Countries of SAARC (Bangladeshi, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) signed the charter to establish the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) on December 8th, 1985.

Afghanistan joined SAARC as a Member at the Fourteenth SAARC Summit, Delhi, April 2007.

SAARC is unique concept of regional cooperation. with very distinct geographical, cultural, environmental diversity, the SAARC member states compress of the worlds highest mountains, land locked mountains terrains to deltaic low line flood – prone areas and one of the smallest low line island nation in the world.

With the world’s most populous country, SAARC is home to nearly 1.5billion people or about 22% of world’s population

SAARC Secretariat

The SAARC secretariat was established in Kathmandu on 16th January 1987. It’s role is to coordinate and monitor the implementation of SAARC activities, service the meetings of the association and serve as the channel of communication between SAARC and the international organization

The secretariat comprises the Secretary General, Eight Directors and the general service staffs.

On the SAARC Charter Day all member states hold celebration rise public awareness of the commitment of governments to the SAARC process and to highlight some of the principal activities and the work of the association. Statements are issued by the Member States and the Secretary General to commemorate SAARC Charter Day.

SAARC Conventions

SAARC Convention on Combating and Prevention of Trafficking in Women and Children for Prostitution

Convention on Promotion of Welfare of Children

Convention on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters, July 2008

SAARC Conventionon Narcotics Drugs

SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism

Additional Protocol on Terrorism, Jan 2004

Agreements

Agreement for establishment of SAARC Arbitration Council
Final Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation
Final Agreement on Customs Matters
CHARTER OF SDF 31 July 2008
Agreement on establishing the SAARC food bank
Agreement on south Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA)
Agreement on the Establishment of South Asian Regional Standards Organisation (SARSO)
Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation

SAARC Summit

The Charter (Article III) provides that the Heads of State or Government “shall meet once a year or more often as and when considered necessary by the Member States”.

However, the Summit has generally been convened at an interval of one and half year or so. The next i.e. Sixteenth Summit of the Heads of State or Government would be held at Thimphu on 28-29 April 2010.

Summit Declarations provide directives and mandate for regional co-operation. Following are the past Summit Declarations:

First SAARC Summit, Dhaka, 1985
Second SAARC Summit, Bangalore, 1986
Third SAARC Summit, Kathmandu, 1987
Fourth Summit, Islambad, 1988
Fifth SAARC Summit, Male’, 1990
Sixth SAARC Summit, Colombo, 1991
Seventh SAARC Summit. Dhaka, 1993
Eighth SAARC Summit, New Delhi 1995
Ninth SAARC Summit, Male’, 1997
Tenth SAARC Summit, Colombo, 1998
Eleventh SAARC Summit, Kathmandu, 2002
Twelfth SAARC Summit, Islamabad, 2004
Thirteenth SAARC Summit, Dhaka, 2005
Fourteenth SAARC Summit, New Delhi, 2007
Fifteenth SAARC Summit, Colombo, 2008
Sixteenth SAARC Summit, Thimphu, 2010

Ministerial Declarations

Ministerial Declaration on Global Economic Crisis
Colombo Statement on Children of South Asia
Declaration on Cooperation in Combating Terrorism
Islamabad Declaration on Health, 2005
Colombo Declaration on a Common Environment Programe
Common Position on Climate Change, Nov. 1998
Rawalpindi Resolution on Children of South Asia, Aug. 1996
New Delhi Declaration of Environment Ministers, Apr, 1997
Declaration of Commerce Ministers, May 1998

Aims of the United Nations

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

To keep peace throughout the world.
To develop friendly relations between nations.
To work together to help people live better lives, to eliminate poverty, disease and illiteracy in the world, to stop environmental destruction and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms.
To be a centre for helping nations achieve these aims.

The Security Council

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

It is mainly responsible for ensuring peace in the world.
It is composed of 15 members of which 5 are permanent members and 10 are elected by the General Assembly.
The five permanent members are the USA, UK, Russia, China and France.
The 10 permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for two years and are not eligible for immediate re-election
Each member of the security council has one vote
VETO-The approval of all the permanent members is necessary on important matters. If any permanent member casts a “veto” to show its disagreement then no decision can be taken
The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.
The Council may convene at any time, whenever peace is threatened. Under the Charter, all Member States are obligated to carry out the Council’s decisions.
There are 15 Council members. Five of these — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — are permanent members. The other 10 are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.

Ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date):

Argentina (2014)
Azerbaijan (2013)
Australia (2014)
Guatemala (2013)
Luxembourg (2014)
Morocco (2013)
Pakistan (2013)
Republic of Korea (2014)
Rwanda (2014)
Togo (2013)

The Council can take measures to enforce its decisions. It can impose economic sanctions or order an arms embargo. On rare occasions, the Council has authorized Member States to use “all necessary means,” including collective military action, to see that its decisions are carried out.

The Council also makes recommendations to the General Assembly on the appointment of a new Secretary-General and on the admission of new Members to the UN.

Description of WHO

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

About WHO

WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends.

In the 21st century, health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats.

The role of WHO in public health

WHO fulfils its objectives through its core functions:

providing leadership on matters critical to health and engaging in partnerships where joint action is needed;
shaping the research agenda and stimulating the generation, translation and dissemination of valuable knowledge;
setting norms and standards and promoting and monitoring their implementation;
articulating ethical and evidence-based policy options;
providing technical support, catalysing change, and building sustainable institutional capacity; and
monitoring the health situation and assessing health trends.

These core functions are set out in the 11th General Programme of Work, which provides the framework for organization-wide programme of work, budget, resources and results. Entitled “Engaging for health”, it covers the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015.

The WHO agenda
WHO operates in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing landscape. The boundaries of public health action have become blurred, extending into other sectors that influence health opportunities and outcomes. WHO responds to these challenges using a six-point agenda. The six points address two health objectives, two strategic needs, and two operational approaches. The overall performance of WHO will be measured by the impact of its work on women’s health and health in Africa.

“I want my leadership to be judged by the impact of our work on the health of two populations: women and the people of Africa.”
Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General

More on women’s health and health in Africa

1. Promoting development
During the past decade, health has achieved unprecedented prominence as a key driver of socioeconomic progress, and more resources than ever are being invested in health. Yet poverty continues to contribute to poor health, and poor health anchors large populations in poverty. Health development is directed by the ethical principle of equity: Access to life-saving or health-promoting interventions should not be denied for unfair reasons, including those with economic or social roots. Commitment to this principle ensures that WHO activities aimed at health development give priority to health outcomes in poor, disadvantaged or vulnerable groups. Attainment of the health-related Millennium Development Goals, preventing and treating chronic diseases and addressing the neglected tropical diseases are the cornerstones of the health and development agenda.

2. Fostering health security
Shared vulnerability to health security threats demands collective action. One of the greatest threats to international health security arises from outbreaks of emerging and epidemic-prone diseases. Such outbreaks are occurring in increasing numbers, fuelled by such factors as rapid urbanization, environmental mismanagement, the way food is produced and traded, and the way antibiotics are used and misused. The world’s ability to defend itself collectively against outbreaks has been strengthened since June 2007, when the revised International Health Regulations came into force.

3. Strengthening health systems
For health improvement to operate as a poverty-reduction strategy, health services must reach poor and underserved populations. Health systems in many parts of the world are unable to do so, making the strengthening of health systems a high priority for WHO. Areas being addressed include the provision of adequate numbers of appropriately trained staff, sufficient financing, suitable systems for collecting vital statistics, and access to appropriate technology including essential drugs.

4. Harnessing research, information and evidence
Evidence provides the foundation for setting priorities, defining strategies, and measuring results. WHO generates authoritative health information, in consultation with leading experts, to set norms and standards, articulate evidence-based policy options and monitor the evolving global heath situation.

5. Enhancing partnerships
WHO carries out its work with the support and collaboration of many partners, including UN agencies and other international organizations, donors, civil society and the private sector. WHO uses the strategic power of evidence to encourage partners implementing programmes within countries to align their activities with best technical guidelines and practices, as well as with the priorities established by countries.

6. Improving performance
WHO participates in ongoing reforms aimed at improving its efficiency and effectiveness, both at the international level and within countries. WHO aims to ensure that its strongest asset – its staff – works in an environment that is motivating and rewarding. WHO plans its budget and activities through results-based management, with clear expected results to measure performance at country, regional and international levels.

History of WHO

When diplomats met to form the United Nations in 1945, one of the things they discussed was setting up a global health organization.

WHO’s Constitution came into force on 7 April 1948 – a date we now celebrate every year as World Health Day.

Introduction to UNESCO

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

UNESCO works to create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values. It is through this dialogue that the world can achieve global visions of sustainable development encompassing observance of human rights, mutual respect and the alleviation of poverty, all of which are at the heart of UNESCO’S mission and activities.

The broad goals and concrete objectives of the international community – as set out in the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – underpin all UNESCO’s strategies and activities. Thus UNESCO’s unique competencies in education, the sciences, culture and communication and information contribute towards the realization of those goals.

UNESCO’s mission is to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information. The Organization focuses, in particular, on two global priorities:

Africa
Gender equality And on a number of overarching objectives:
Attaining quality education for all and lifelong learning
Mobilizing science knowledge and policy for sustainable development
Addressing emerging social and ethical challenges
Fostering cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and a culture of peace
Building inclusive knowledge societies through information and communication

The Organization’s history
As early as 1942, in wartime, the governments of the European countries, which were confronting Nazi Germany and its allies, met in the United Kingdom for the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education (CAME). The Second World War was far from over, yet those countries were looking for ways and means to reconstruct their systems of education once peace was restored. Very quickly, the project gained momentum and soon took on a universal note. New governments, including that of the United States, decided to join in.

Upon the proposal of CAME, a United Nations Conference for the establishment of an educational and cultural organization (ECO/CONF) was convened in London from 1 to 16 November 1945. Scarcely had the war ended when the conference opened. It gathered together the representatives of forty-four countries who decided to create an organization that would embody a genuine culture of peace. In their eyes, the new organization must establish the “intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind” and, in so doing, prevent the outbreak of another world war.

At the end of the conference, thirty-seven countries founded the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The Constitution of UNESCO, signed on 16 November 1945, came into force on 4 November 1946 after ratification by twenty countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, France, Greece, India, Lebanon, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. The first session of theGeneral Conference of UNESCO was held in Paris from 19 November to 10 December 1946 with the participation of representatives from 30 governments entitled to vote.

The political divisions of the Second World War marked the composition of the founding Member States of UNESCO. It was not until 1951 that Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany became Members, and Spain was accepted in 1953. Other major historical factors, such as the Cold War, the decolonization process and the dissolution of the USSR, also left their trace on UNESCO. The USSR joined UNESCO in 1954 and was replaced by the Russian Federation in 1992 alongside 12 former Soviet republics. Nineteen African states became Members in the 1960s.

As a consequence of its entry into the United Nations, the People’s Republic of China has been the only legitimate representative of China at UNESCO since 1971. The German Democratic Republic was a Member from 1972 to 1990, when it joined the Federal Republic of Germany.

Some countries withdrew from the Organization for political reasons at various points in time, but they have today all rejoined UNESCO. South Africa was absent from 1957 to 1994, the United States of America between 1985 to 2003, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1986 to 1997 and Singapore from 1986 to 2007.

Origins of UNESCO

The main predecessors of UNESCO were:

The International Committee of Intellectual Co-operation (CICI), Geneva 1922-1946, and its executing agency, the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation (IICI), Paris, 1925-1946;
The International Bureau of Education (IBE), Geneva, 1925-1968; since 1969 IBE has been part of the UNESCO Secretariat under its own statutes.

UNESCO’s governing bodies

The General Conference

The General Conference consists of the representatives of the States Members of the Organization. It meets every two years, and is attended by Member States and Associate Members, together with observers for non-Member States, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Each country has one vote, irrespective of its size or the extent of its contribution to the budget.

The General Conference determines the policies and the main lines of work of the Organization. Its duty is to set the programs and the budget of UNESCO. It also elects the Members of the Executive Board and appoints, every four years, the Director-General. The working languages of the General Conference are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.

The Executive Boards

The Executive Board, in a sense, assures the overall management of UNESCO. It prepares the work of the General Conference and sees that its decisions are properly carried out. The functions and responsibilities of the Executive Board are derived primarily from the Constitution and from rules or directives laid down by the General Conference.

Every two years the General Conference assigns specific tasks to the Board. Other functions stem from agreements concluded between UNESCO and the United Nations, the specialized agencies and other intergovernmental organizations.

Its fifty-eight members are elected by the General Conference. The choice of these representatives is largely a matter of the diversity of the cultures and their geographical origin. Skilful negotiations may be needed before a balance is reached among the different regions of the world in a way that will reflect the universality of the Organization. The Executive Board meets twice a year.

Member States

With the entry of the Faroe Islands to UNESCO as an Associate Member in October 2009, the Organization has now193 Member States and 7 Associate Members.

The Sector for External Relations and Public Information (ERI) and the Africa Department (AFR) ensure liaison with Member States. While AFR covers the Member States from the Africa region, ERI is responsible for relations with the Member States from the four other regions and with Associate Members.

Relations with Member States are also ensured by the Directors and Heads of the UNESCO Regional, Cluster and National Offices.

Most Member States have established Permanent Delegations to UNESCO which, headed by Ambassadors, undertake liaison between the Organization and their governments.

All Member States have established a National Commission for UNESCO. The UNESCO National Commissions are national cooperating bodies set up by the Member States for the purpose of associating their governmental and non-governmental bodies with the work of the Organization.

Member States and Associate Members designate one or several Ministries responsible for relations with UNESCO and/or Ministries in UNESCO’s fields of competence.

UNESCO emphasizes its efforts to involve nationally (Parliamentarians) and locally elected representatives (Cities and Local Authorities) in its action.

The executive branch of the Organization

The Secretariat consists of the Director-General and the Staff appointed by him or her. As of mid-2009, the Secretariat employed around 2,000 civil servants from some 170 countries. The staff is divided into Professional and General Service categories. More than 700 staff members work in UNESCO’s 65 field offices around the world.

Structure of the UNESCO Secretariat

Director-General

Office of the Director-General (ODG)

Programme Sectors:

Education (ED)
Natural Sciences (SC)
Social and Human Sciences (SHS)
Culture (CLT)
Communication and Information (CI)

Support Sectors:

External Relations and Public Information (ERI)
Administration (ADM)

Central Services:

Secretariat of the Governing Bodies (GBS)
Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs (LA)
Internal Oversight Service (IOS)
Ethics Office (ETH)
Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP)
Bureau of Financial Management (BFM)
Bureau of Human Resources Management (HRM)
Bureau of Field Coordination (BFC)
Africa Department (AFR)
Secretariat of the Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize (CRP)

How the ILO Works

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Tripartism and social dialogue

Underlying the ILO’s work is the importance of cooperation between governments and employers’ and workers’ organizations in fostering social and economic progress.

The ILO aims to ensure that it serves the needs of working women and men by bringing together governments, employers and workers to set labor standards, develop policies and devise programs. The very structure of the ILO, where workers and employers together have an equal voice with governments in its deliberations, shows social dialogue in action. It ensures that the views of the social partners are closely reflected in ILO labour standards, policies and programmes.

The ILO encourages this tripartism within its constituents and member States by promoting a social dialogue between trade unions and employers in formulating, and where appropriate, implementing national policy on social, economic, and many other issues.

The ILO accomplishes its work through three main bodies (The International labour Conference, the Governing body and the Office) which comprise governments’, employers’ and workers’ representatives.

The work of the Governing Body and of the Office is aided by tripartite committees covering major industries. It is also supported by committees of experts on such matters as vocational training, management development, occupational safety and health, industrial relations, workers’ education, and special problems of women and young workers.

Regional meetings of the ILO member States are held periodically to examine matters of special interest to the regions concerned.

International Labour Conference

International labour standards and the broad policies of the ILO are set by the International Labour Conference, which meets annually. Often called an international parliament of labour, the Conference is also a forum for discussion of key social and labour questions.

Standards supervisory system

International labour standards are backed by a supervisory system that helps to ensure that countries implement the conventions they ratify.

Governing body

The Governing Body is the executive council of the ILO and meets three times a year in Geneva. It takes decisions on ILO policy and establishes the programme and the budget, which it then submits to the Conference for adoption.

Partnerships and development

Since the early 1950s, the ILO has been providing technical cooperation to countries on all continents and at all stages of economic development. Projects are implemented through close cooperation between recipient countries, donors, and the ILO, which maintains a network of area and regional offices worldwide.

International Labour Office

The ILO secretariat, operational headquarters, research centre and publishing house, are based in the International Labour Office, Geneva. Administration and management are decentralized in regional, area, and branch offices.

Programme and Budget

The Programme and Budget of the Organization which sets out the strategic objectives and expected outcomes for the Organization’s work is approved every two years by the International Labour Conference.

Settling Disputes

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Understanding the WTO : Settling disputes

A unique contribution

Dispute settlement is the central pillar of the multilateral trading system, and the WTO’s unique contribution to the stability of the global economy. Without a means of settling disputes, the rules-based system would be less effective because the rules could not be enforced. The WTO’s procedure underscores the rule of law, and it makes the trading system more secure and predictable. The system is based on clearly-defined rules, with timetables for completing a case. First rulings are made by a panel and endorsed (or rejected) by the WTO’s full membership. Appeals based on points of law are possible.

However, the point is not to pass judgement. The priority is to settle disputes, through consultations if possible. By January 2008, only about 136 of the nearly 369 cases had reached the full panel process. Most of the rest have either been notified as settled “out of court” or remain in a prolonged consultation phase — some since 1995.

Principles: equitable, fast, effective, mutually acceptable

Disputes in the WTO are essentially about broken promises. WTO members have agreed that if they believe fellow-members are violating trade rules, they will use the multilateral system of settling disputes instead of taking action unilaterally. That means abiding by the agreed procedures, and respecting judgements.

A dispute arises when one country adopts a trade policy measure or takes some action that one or more fellow-WTO members considers to be breaking the WTO agreements, or to be a failure to live up to obligations. A third group of countries can declare that they have an interest in the case and enjoy some rights.

A procedure for settling disputes existed under the old GATT, but it had no fixed timetables, rulings were easier to block, and many cases dragged on for a long time inconclusively. The Uruguay Round agreement introduced a more structured process with more clearly defined stages in the procedure. It introduced greater discipline for the length of time a case should take to be settled, with flexible deadlines set in various stages of the procedure. The agreement emphasizes that prompt settlement is essential if the WTO is to function effectively. It sets out in considerable detail the procedures and the timetable to be followed in resolving disputes. If a case runs its full course to a first ruling, it should not normally take more than about one year — 15 months if the case is appealed. The agreed time limits are flexible, and if the case is considered urgent (e.g. if perishable goods are involved), it is accelerated as much as possible.

The Uruguay Round agreement also made it impossible for the country losing a case to block the adoption of the ruling. Under the previous GATT procedure, rulings could only be adopted by consensus, meaning that a single objection could block the ruling. Now, rulings are automatically adopted unless there is a consensus to reject a ruling — any country wanting to block a ruling has to persuade all other WTO members (including its adversary in the case) to share its view.

Although much of the procedure does resemble a court or tribunal, the preferred solution is for the countries concerned to discuss their problems and settle the dispute by themselves. The first stage is therefore consultations between the governments concerned, and even when the case has progressed to other stages, consultation and mediation are still always possible.

How long to settle a dispute?
These approximate periods for each stage of a dispute settlement procedure are target figures — the agreement is flexible. In addition, the countries can settle their dispute themselves at any stage. Totals are also approximate.

How long to settle a dispute? These approximate periods for each stage of a dispute settlement procedure are target figures — the agreement is flexible. In addition, the countries can settle their dispute themselves at any stage. Totals are also approximate.
60 days	Consultations, mediation, etc
45 days	Panel set up and panellists appointed
6 months	Final panel report to parties
3 weeks	Final panel report to WTO members
60 days	Dispute Settlement Body adopts report (if no appeal)
Total = 1 year	(without appeal)
60-90 days	Appeals report
30 days	Dispute Settlement Body adopts appeals report
Total = 1y 3m	(with appeal)

How are disputes settled?

Settling disputes is the responsibility of the Dispute Settlement Body (the General Council in another guise), which consists of all WTO members. The Dispute Settlement Body has the sole authority to establish “panels” of experts to consider the case, and to accept or reject the panels’ findings or the results of an appeal. It monitors the implementation of the rulings and recommendations, and has the power to authorize retaliation when a country does not comply with a ruling.

First stage: consultation (up to 60 days). Before taking any other actions the countries in dispute have to talk to each other to see if they can settle their differences by themselves. If that fails, they can also ask the WTO director-general to mediate or try to help in any other way.

Second stage: the panel (up to 45 days for a panel to be appointed, plus 6 months for the panel to conclude). If consultations fail, the complaining country can ask for a panel to be appointed. The country “in the dock” can block the creation of a panel once, but when the Dispute Settlement Body meets for a second time, the appointment can no longer be blocked (unless there is a consensus against appointing the panel).

Officially, the panel is helping the Dispute Settlement Body make rulings or recommendations. But because the panel’s report can only be rejected by consensus in the Dispute Settlement Body, its conclusions are difficult to overturn. The panel’s findings have to be based on the agreements cited.

The panel’s final report should normally be given to the parties to the dispute within six months. In cases of urgency, including those concerning perishable goods, the deadline is shortened to three months.

The agreement describes in some detail how the panels are to work. The main stages are:

Before the first hearing: each side in the dispute presents its case in writing to the panel.

First hearing: the case for the complaining country and defence: the complaining country (or countries), the responding country, and those that have announced they have an interest in the dispute, make their case at the panel’s first hearing.

Rebuttals: the countries involved submit written rebuttals and present oral arguments at the panel’s second meeting.

Experts: if one side raises scientific or other technical matters, the panel may consult experts or appoint an expert review group to prepare an advisory report.

First draft: the panel submits the descriptive (factual and argument) sections of its report to the two sides, giving them two weeks to comment. This report does not include findings and conclusions.

Interim report: The panel then submits an interim report, including its findings and conclusions, to the two sides, giving them one week to ask for a review.

Review: The period of review must not exceed two weeks. During that time, the panel may hold additional meetings with the two sides.

Final report: A final report is submitted to the two sides and three weeks later, it is circulated to all WTO members. If the panel decides that the disputed trade measure does break a WTO agreement or an obligation, it recommends that the measure be made to conform with WTO rules. The panel may suggest how this could be done.

The report becomes a ruling: The report becomes the Dispute Settlement Body’s ruling or recommendation within 60 days unless a consensus rejects it. Both sides can appeal the report (and in some cases both sides do).

Appeals

Either side can appeal a panel’s ruling. Sometimes both sides do so. Appeals have to be based on points of law such as legal interpretation — they cannot reexamine existing evidence or examine new issues.

Each appeal is heard by three members of a permanent seven-member Appellate Body set up by the Dispute Settlement Body and broadly representing the range of WTO membership. Members of the Appellate Body have four-year terms. They have to be individuals with recognized standing in the field of law and international trade, not affiliated with any government.

The appeal can uphold, modify or reverse the panel’s legal findings and conclusions. Normally appeals should not last more than 60 days, with an absolute maximum of 90 days.

The Dispute Settlement Body has to accept or reject the appeals report within 30 days — and rejection is only possible by consensus.

The case has been decided: what next?

Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect …. Well, not exactly. But the sentiments apply. If a country has done something wrong, it should swiftly correct its fault. And if it continues to break an agreement, it should offer compensation or suffer a suitable penalty that has some bite.

Even once the case has been decided, there is more to do before trade sanctions (the conventional form of penalty) are imposed. The priority at this stage is for the losing “defendant” to bring its policy into line with the ruling or recommendations. The dispute settlement agreement stresses that “prompt compliance with recommendations or rulings of the DSB [Dispute Settlement Body] is essential in order to ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members”.

If the country that is the target of the complaint loses, it must follow the recommendations of the panel report or the appeals report. It must state its intention to do so at a Dispute Settlement Body meeting held within 30 days of the report’s adoption. If complying with the recommendation immediately proves impractical, the member will be given a “reasonable period of time” to do so. If it fails to act within this period, it has to enter into negotiations with the complaining country (or countries) in order to determine mutually-acceptable compensation — for instance, tariff reductions in areas of particular interest to the complaining side.

If after 20 days, no satisfactory compensation is agreed, the complaining side may ask the Dispute Settlement Body for permission to impose limited trade sanctions (“suspend concessions or obligations”) against the other side. The Dispute Settlement Body must grant this authorization within 30 days of the expiry of the “reasonable period of time” unless there is a consensus against the request.

In principle, the sanctions should be imposed in the same sector as the dispute. If this is not practical or if it would not be effective, the sanctions can be imposed in a different sector of the same agreement. In turn, if this is not effective or practicable and if the circumstances are serious enough, the action can be taken under another agreement. The objective is to minimize the chances of actions spilling over into unrelated sectors while at the same time allowing the actions to be effective.

In any case, the Dispute Settlement Body monitors how adopted rulings are implemented. Any outstanding case remains on its agenda until the issue is resolved.

The panel process

The various stages a dispute can go through in the WTO. At all stages, countries in dispute are encouraged to consult each other in order to settle “out of court”. At all stages, the WTO director-general is available to offer his good offices, to mediate or to help achieve a conciliation.

The Secretariat of the United Nations

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

An international staff working in duty stations around the world -carries out the diverse day-to-day work of the Organization.

Functions:

To service the other principal organs of the United Nations.
To administers the programs and policies laid down by other bodies of the Union.
To inform the world’s communications media about the work of the United Nations.
To organize international conferences on issues of worldwide concern.
To interpret speeches and translate documents into the Organization’s official languages
administering peacekeeping operations
mediating international disputes
surveying economic and social trends and problems
preparing studies on human rights and sustainable development

Functions of the Secretary General:

To be the chief administrative officer of the organization
To act as secretary to all major delegate bodies of the UN
To perform functions assigned by the GA and three Councils
To make an annual report to the GA on the work of the organization
To appoint the secretary staff

Powers of the Secretary General:

Can bring to the Security Council any matter that might threaten world peace
Has the authority to serve as a neutral mediator in international conflicts and to bring hostile parties together to negotiate
Works to build consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council

Composition of the International Court of Justice

International Organizations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election process is set out in Articles 4–19 of the ICJ statute. Elections are staggered with five judges elected every three years, in order to ensure continuity within the court.

Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge of the same nationality to complete the term. No two may be nationals of the same country. According to Article 9, the membership of the Court is supposed to represent the “main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world”. Essentially, this has meant common law, civil law and socialist law (now post-communist law). Since its creation, four of the five permanent members of the Security Council (France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court. The exception was China (the Republic of China until 1971, the People’s Republic of China from 1971 onwards), which did not have a judge on the Court from 1967–1985, because it did not put forward a candidate. The rule on a geopolitical composition of the bench exists despite the fact that there is no provision for it in the Statute of the ICJ.

Article 6 of the Statute provides that all judges should be “elected regardless of their nationality among persons of high moral character”, who are either qualified for the highest judicial office in their home states or known as lawyers with sufficient competence in international law. Judicial independence is dealt with specifically in Articles 16–18. Judges of the ICJ are not able to hold any other post, nor act as counsel. In practice the Members of the Court have their own interpretation of these rules. This allows them to be involved in outside arbitration and hold professional posts as long as there is no conflict of interest. A judge can be dismissed only by a unanimous vote of other members of the Court.[4] Despite these provisions, the independence of ICJ judges has been questioned. For example, during the Nicaragua Case, the USA issued a communiqué suggesting that it could not present sensitive material to the Court because of the presence of judges from Eastern bloc states.[5]

Judges may deliver joint judgments or give their own separate opinions. Decisions and Advisory Opinions are by majority and, in the event of an equal division, the President’s vote becomes decisive.[6] Judges may also deliver separate dissenting opinions.

Ad hoc judges

Article 31 of the statute sets out a procedure whereby ad hoc judges sit on contentious cases before the Court. This system allows any party to a contentious case to nominate a judge of their choosing. It is possible that as many as seventeen judges may sit on one case.

This system may seem strange when compared with domestic court processes, but its purpose is to encourage states to submit cases to the Court. For example, if a state knows it will have a judicial officer who can participate in deliberation and offer other judges local knowledge and an understanding of the state’s perspective, that state may be more willing to submit to the Court’s jurisdiction. Although this system does not sit well with the judicial nature of the body, it is usually of little practical consequence. Ad hoc judges usually (but not always) vote in favor of the state that appointed them and thus cancel each other out. [7]

Chambers

Generally, the Court sits as full bench, but in the last fifteen years it has on occasion sat as a chamber. Articles 26–29 of the statute allow the Court to form smaller chambers, usually 3 or 5 judges, to hear cases. Two types of chambers are contemplated by Article 26: firstly, chambers for special categories of cases, and second, the formation of ad hoc chambers to hear particular disputes. In 1993 a special chamber was established, under Article 26(1) of the ICJ statute, to deal specifically with environmental matters (although this chamber has never been used).

Ad hoc chambers are more frequently convened. For example, chambers were used to hear the Gulf of Maine Case (Canada/USA).[8] In that case, the parties made clear they would withdraw the case unless the Court appointed judges to the chamber who were acceptable to the parties. Judgments of chambers may have less authority than full Court judgments, or may diminish the proper interpretation of universal international law informed by a variety of cultural and legal perspectives. On the other hand, the use of chambers might encourage greater recourse to the Court and thus enhance international dispute resolution.[9]

Current composition

As of 27 April 2012, the composition of the Court is as follows:[10]