TyroCity: International Organizations

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

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.

Nepal National Commission for UNESCO (NNCU)

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

After Nepal was admitted to UNESCO on 1 May 1953 a Nepal Interim National Commission for UNESCO was setup under the Chairmanship of the then Minister for Education on the 26th July 1954. The system of making the Education Secretary as the exofficio Secretary General of the Nepal National Commission for UNESCO demonstrates Nepal’s Commitment to UNESCO. The following are the objectives of the Nepal National Commission for UNESCO, which are manifested in its Constitution 1974 (amendment):

To promote the economic social and intellectual development of the Nepalese People through educational, scientific and cultural activities.
To hold or to encourage to hold seminars, talk programmes, conferences and to promote study and research in the field of education, culture, science, mass communication and social service sectors.
To introduce Nepal’s glorious culture through UNESCO to the world community .
To disseminate and publicize UNESCO objectives and programmes to a wider audience.
To extend co-operation to the programmes conducted by UNESCO at the regional and international levels.
To provide support for the implementation of the national as well as regional projects and programmes conducted in co – operation with UNESCO.

The UNESCO Constitution provides the overarching framework to structure the Nepal National Commission for UNESCO.

According to the Constitution the structure or the frame of NATCOM comprises the following:

Commission
Executive Committee, Subject Committees and Special Committees
Secretariat

Field of Actions

Activities organized by the Nepal National Commission for UNESCO in the following UNESCO related sector.

Education

Education for All (EFA)
School Education
Higher Education
Literacy
Peace Education
Education for Sustainable Development
Education for International Understanding
Gender in Education
ICT in Education

Culture

World Heritage
Cultural Diversity
Tangible Culture
Intangible Culture
Inter Cultural Dialogue

Social Science

Ethics
Human Rights
Poverty Eradication
Democracy

Science

Science and Technology
Science Education
Technology Transfer
Environment
Sustainable Development

Communication and Information

Media Development
Press Freedom
ICT and Mass Communication

Members of IMF

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

Membership Qualifications

The application will be considered first by the IMF’s Executive Board. After its consideration, the Executive Board will submit a report to the Board of Governors of the IMF with recommendations in the form of a “Membership Resolution”. These recommendations cover the amount of quota in the IMF, the form of payment of the subscription, and other customary terms and conditions of membership. After the Board of Governors has adopted the “Membership Resolution,” the applicant state needs to take the legal steps required under its own law to enable it to sign the IMF’s Articles of Agreement and to fulfill the obligations of IMF membership.

Similarly, any member country can withdraw from the Fund, although that is rare. For example, in April 2007, the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa announced the expulsion of the World Bank representative in the country. A few days later, at the end of April, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez announced that the country would withdraw from the IMF and the World Bank. Chavez dubbed both organizations as “the tools of the empire” that “serve the interests of the North”. As of June 2009, both countries remain as members of both organizations. Venezuela was forced to back down because a withdrawal would have triggered default clauses in the country’s sovereign bonds.

A member’s quota in the IMF determines the amount of its subscription, its voting weight, its access to IMF financing, and its allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). A member state cannot unilaterally increase its quota—increases must be approved by the Executive Board of IMF and are linked to formulas that include many variables such as the size of a country in the world economy. For example, in 2001, the People’s Republic of China was prevented from increasing its quota as high as it wished, ensuring it remained at the level of the smallest G7 economy (Canada).
In September 2005, the IMF’s member countries agreed to the first round of ad hoc quota increases for four countries, including China. On March 28, 2008, the IMF’s Executive Board ended a period of extensive discussion and negotiation over a major package of reforms to enhance the institution’s governance that would shift quota and voting shares from advanced to emerging markets and developing countries. Under existing arrangements, the industrialised countries(including Mexico) hold 57 per cent of the IMF votes. But the financial crisis has tilted control away from heavily indebted mature economies, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, in favour of the fast-growing, cash-rich, so-called “BRIC” economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China.
Since the United States has by far the largest share of votes (approx. 17%) amongst IMF members (see table below), it has little to lose relative to European nations. At the 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit, the US raised the possibility that some European countries would reduce their votes in favour of increasing the votes for emerging economies. However, both France and Britain were particularly reluctant as an increase in China’s votes would mean China now has more votes than the UK and France. At a subsequent IMF meeting in Istanbul, the same month as the Pittsburgh Summit, IMF managing director Jean Claude Trichet then highlighted that “If we don’t correct them, we’ll have the recipe for the next major crisis.” Citing the seriousness of the issue to be tackled.

Members’ quotas and voting power, and board of governors

Major decisions require an 85% supermajority. The United States has always been the only country able to block a supermajority on its own. The following table shows the top 20 member countries in terms of voting power (2,220,817 votes in total). The 27 member states of the European Union have a combined vote of 710,786 (32.07%).

On October 23, 2010, the Ministers of Finance of G-20, governing most of the IMF member quotas, agreed to reform IMF and shift about 6% of the voting shares to major developing nations and countries with emerging markets.

Members’ quotas and voting power, and board of governors

Members' quotas and voting power, and board of governors
IMF member country	Quota: millions of SDRs	Quota: percentage of total	Governor	Alternate Governor	Votes: number	Votes: percentage of total
United States	37,149.3	17.09	Timothy F. Geithner	Ben Bernanke	371,743	16.74
Japan	13,312.8	6.12	Yoshihiko Noda	Masaaki Shirakawa	133,378	6.01
Germany	13,008.2	5.98	Axel A. Weber	Wolfgang Schäuble	130,332	5.87
United Kingdom	10,738.5	4.94	George Osborne	Mervyn King	107,635	4.85
France	10,738.5	4.94	Christine Lagarde	Christian Noyer	107,635	4.85
China	8,090.1	3.72	Zhou Xiaochuan	Yi Gang	81,151	3.65
Italy	7,055.5	3.24	Giulio Tremonti	Mario Draghi	70,805	3.19
Saudi Arabia	6,985.5	3.21	Ibrahim A. Al-Assaf	Hamad Al-Sayari	70,105	3.16
Canada	6,369.2	2.93	Jim Flaherty	Mark Carney	63,942	2.88
Russia	5,945.4	2.73	Aleksei Kudrin	Sergey Ignatyev	59,704	2.69
Netherlands	5,162.4	2.37	Nout Wellink	L.B.J. van Geest	51,874	2.34
Belgium	4,605.2	2.12	Guy Quaden	Jean-Pierre Arnoldi	46,302	2.08
India	4,158.2	1.91	Pranab Mukherjee	Duvvuri Subbarao	41,832	1.88
Switzerland	3,458.5	1.59	Jean-Pierre Roth	Hans-Rudolf Merz	34,835	1.57
Australia	3,236.4	1.49	Wayne Swan	Ken Henry	32,614	1.47
Mexico	3,152.8	1.45	Agustín Carstens	Guillermo Ortiz	31,778	1.43
Spain	3,048.9	1.40	Elena Salgado	Miguel Fernández Ordóñez	30,739	1.38
Brazil	3,036.1	1.40	Guido Mantega	Henrique Meirelles	30,611	1.38
South Korea	2,927.3	1.35	Okyu Kwon	Seong Tae Lee	29,523	1.33
Venezuela	2,659.1	1.22	Gastón Parra Luzardo	Rodrigo Cabeza Morales	26,841	1.21
remaining 166 countries	62,593.8	28.79	respective	respective	667,438	30.05

Assistance and reforms

The primary mission of the IMF is to provide financial assistance to countries that experience serious financial and economic difficulties using funds deposited with the IMF from the institution’s 187 member countries. Member states with balance of payments problems, which often arise from these difficulties, may request loans to help fill gaps between what countries earn and/or are able to borrow from other official lenders and what countries must spend to operate, including to cover the cost of importing basic goods and services. In return, countries are usually required to launch certain reforms, which have often been dubbed the “Washington Consensus”. These reforms are thought to be beneficial to countries with fixed exchange rate policies that may engage in fiscal, monetary, and political practices which may lead to the crisis itself. For example, nations with severe budget deficits, rampant inflation, strict price controls, or significantly over-valued or under-valued currencies run the risk of facing balance of payment crises. Thus, the structural adjustment programs are at least ostensibly intended to ensure that the IMF is actually helping to prevent financial crises rather than merely funding financial recklessness.

Organizational Structure

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

The WTO is ‘member-driven’, with decisions taken by consensus among all member governments.

Ministerial Conferences

The topmost decision-making body of the WTO is the Ministerial Conference, which usually meets every two years. It brings together all members of the WTO, all of which are countries or customs unions. The Ministerial Conference can take decisions on all matters under any of the multilateral trade agreements.

The Ministerial Conference is the topmost body of the WTO under the governance structure set up by the “Agreement establishing the WTO”.

The WTO General Council

The General Council is the WTO’s highest-level decision-making body in Geneva, meeting regularly to carry out the functions of the WTO. It has representatives (usually ambassadors or equivalent) from all member governments and has the authority to act on behalf of the ministerial conference which only meets about every two years. The current chairman is H.E. Mr. Yonov Frederick AGAH (Nigeria).

Work of the General Council and official documents

The General Council is entrusted with carrying out the functions of the WTO, and taking action necessary to this effect, in the intervals between meetings of the Ministerial Conference, in addition to carrying out the specific tasks assigned to it by the WTO Agreement.

The WTO is run by its member governments. All major decisions are made by the membership as a whole, either by ministers (who meet at least once every two years) or by their ambassadors or delegates (who meet regularly in Geneva). Decisions are normally taken by consensus.

In this respect, the WTO is different from some other international organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. In the WTO, power is not delegated to a board of directors or the organization’s head.

When WTO rules impose disciplines on countries’ policies, that is the outcome of negotiations among WTO members. The rules are enforced by the members themselves under agreed procedures that they negotiated, including the possibility of trade sanctions. But those sanctions are imposed by member countries, and authorized by the membership as a whole. This is quite different from other agencies whose bureaucracies can, for example, influence a country’s policy by threatening to withhold credit.

Reaching decisions by consensus among some 150 members can be difficult. Its main advantage is that decisions made this way are more acceptable to all members. And despite the difficulty, some remarkable agreements have been reached. Nevertheless, proposals for the creation of a smaller executive body — perhaps like a board of directors each representing different groups of countries — are heard periodically. But for now, the WTO is a member-driven, consensus-based organization.

Highest authority: the Ministerial Conference

So, the WTO belongs to its members. The countries make their decisions through various councils and committees, whose membership consists of all WTO members. Topmost is the ministerial conference which has to meet at least once every two years. The Ministerial Conference can take decisions on all matters under any of the multilateral trade agreements.

Second level: General Council in three guises

Day-to-day work in between the ministerial conferences is handled by three bodies:

The General Council
The Dispute Settlement Body
The Trade Policy Review Body

All three are in fact the same — the Agreement Establishing the WTO states they are all the General Council, although they meet under different terms of reference. Again, all three consist of all WTO members. They report to the Ministerial Conference.

The General Council acts on behalf of the Ministerial Conference on all WTO affairs. It meets as the Dispute Settlement Body and the Trade Policy Review Body to oversee procedures for settling disputes between membersand to analyse members’ trade policies.

Third level: councils for each broad area of trade, and more

Three more councils, each handling a different broad area of trade, report to the General Council:

The Council for Trade in Goods (Goods Council)
The Council for Trade in Services (Services Council)
The Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Council)

As their names indicate, the three are responsible for the workings of the WTO agreements dealing with their respective areas of trade. Again they consist of all WTO members. The three also have subsidiary bodies .

Six other bodies report to the General Council. The scope of their coverage is smaller, so they are “committees”. But they still consist of all WTO members. They cover issues such as trade and development, the environment, regional trading arrangements, and administrative issues. The Singapore Ministerial Conference in December 1996 decided to create new working groups to look at investment and competition policy, transparency in government procurement, and trade facilitation.

Two more subsidiary bodies dealing with the plurilateral agreements (which are not signed by all WTO members) keep the General Council informed of their activities regularly.

Fourth level: down to the nitty-gritty

Each of the higher level councils has subsidiary bodies. The Goods Councilhas 11 committees dealing with specific subjects (such as agriculture, market access, subsidies, anti-dumping measures and so on). Again, these consist of all member countries. Also reporting to the Goods Council is the Textiles Monitoring Body, which consists of a chairman and 10 members acting in their personal capacities, and groups dealing with notifications (governments informing the WTO about current and new policies or measures) and state trading enterprises.

The Services Council’s subsidiary bodies deal with financial services, domestic regulations, GATS rules and specific commitments.

At the General Council level, the Dispute Settlement Body also has two subsidiaries: the dispute settlement “panels” of experts appointed to adjudicate on unresolved disputes, and the Appellate Body that deals with appeals.

‘HODs’ and other bods: the need for informality

Important breakthroughs are rarely made in formal meetings of these bodies, least of all in the higher level councils. Since decisions are made by consensus, without voting, informal consultations within the WTO play a vital role in bringing a vastly diverse membership round to an agreement.

One step away from the formal meetings are informal meetings that still include the full membership, such as those of the Heads of Delegations (HOD). More difficult issues have to be thrashed out in smaller groups. A common recent practice is for the chairperson of a negotiating group to attempt to forge a compromise by holding consultations with delegations individually, in twos or threes, or in groups of 20-30 of the most interested delegations.

These smaller meetings have to be handled sensitively. The key is to ensure that everyone is kept informed about what is going on (the process must be “transparent”) even if they are not in a particular consultation or meeting, and that they have an opportunity to participate or provide input (it must be “inclusive”).

One term has become controversial, but more among some outside observers than among delegations. The “Green Room” is a phrase taken from the informal name of the director-general’s conference room. It is used to refer to meetings of 20–40 delegations, usually at the level of heads of delegations. These meetings can take place elsewhere, such as at Ministerial Conferences, and can be called by the minister chairing the conference as well as the director-general. Similar smaller group consultations can be organized by the chairs of committees negotiating individual subjects, although the term Green Room is not usually used for these.

In the past delegations have sometimes felt that Green Room meetings could lead to compromises being struck behind their backs. So, extra efforts are made to ensure that the process is handled correctly, with regular reports back to the full membership.

The way countries now negotiate has helped somewhat. In order to increase their bargaining power, countries have formed coalitions. In some subjects such as agriculture virtually all countries are members of at least one coalition — and in many cases, several coalitions. This means that all countries can be represented in the process if the coordinators and other key players are present. The coordinators also take responsibility for both “transparency” and “inclusiveness” by keeping their coalitions informed and by taking the positions negotiated within their alliances.

In the end, decisions have to be taken by all members and by consensus. The membership as a whole would resist attempts to impose the will of a small group. No one has been able to find an alternative way of achieving consensus on difficult issues, because it is virtually impossible for members to change their positions voluntarily in meetings of the full membership.

Market access negotiations also involve small groups, but for a completely different reason. The final outcome is a multilateral package of individual countries’ commitments, but those commitments are the result of numerous bilateral, informal bargaining sessions, which depend on individual countries’ interests. (Examples include the traditional tariff negotiations, and market access talks in services.)

So, informal consultations in various forms play a vital role in allowing consensus to be reached, but they do not appear in organization charts, precisely because they are informal.

They are not separate from the formal meetings, however. They are necessary for making formal decisions in the councils and committees. Nor are the formal meetings unimportant. They are the forums for exchanging views, putting countries’ positions on the record, and ultimately for confirming decisions. The art of achieving agreement among all WTO members is to strike an appropriate balance, so that a breakthrough achieved among only a few countries can be acceptable to the rest of the membership.

The Commonwealth Of Nations Today

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

The Commonwealth Of Nations Today (1949 – Present)

The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of currently 53 independent countries, almost all of which were formerly under British rule. While remaining entirely responsible for their own policies, member countries choose to consult and co-operate in certain areas such as strengthening democracy by good government, promoting human rights and working for social and economic development of poorer countries. Much of the strength of the Commonwealth is derived from its non-governmental and informal links, such as teacher-training schemes, youth ministries, distance education, science and environmental projects, shared sports and arts festivals. This means that it is as much a commonwealth of peoples as of governments. Commonwealth countries exchange High Commissioners to each other instead of ambassadors to recognize the special and closer relationship they have.

Created in 1949 in its present format after India became a republic, replacing the British Commonwealth formed in 1931, the Commonwealth of Nations is a remarkable organisation which remains a major force for change in the world today. A permanent Secretary General of the Commonwealth was established in 1965, starting with Canadian Arnold Smith. The 1.6 billion people of Commonwealth countries make up over a quarter of the world’s population, and over 50 per cent of the population of the Commonwealth is under 25. The great majority of Commonwealth members are parliamentary democracies. In the 1950 s, even France and Norway unsuccessfully applied to join the Commonwealth. Membership of the Commonwealth has, since its beginning, been open to any independent state which was once ruled or administered by Britain or other Commonwealth countries, and recognizes The Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. (In 1995, Mozambique became the first country to join which had not previously had such links with Britain, being a former Portuguese colony.) Almost all countries, when they became independent of the United Kingdom, have chosen to join the Commonwealth but, since the ink is entirely voluntary, any member can withdraw at any time – the Republic of Ireland did so in 1949, as did South Africa in 1961 (subsequently rejoined in 1994). Zimbabwe withdrew in 2003. There are 53 member countries of the Commonwealth, listed below, with the years in which they joined the Commonwealth. Also listed is their constitutional status: ‘realm’ indicates a Commonwealth country which retained a monarchical constitution, recognizing The Queen as Sovereign; ‘monarchy’ indicates an indigenous monarchical constitution; republic indicates a constitution with a President as head of state.

Tuvalu is a special member, with the right to participate in all functional Commonwealth meetings and activities, but not to attend meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. Remaining Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom consist of: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena, South Georgia, Special Base Area Cyprus, Turks and Caicos Islands Niue and Cook Islands are Associated States of New Zealand.

Pre-Second World War British Empire territories which are not members of the Commonwealth today include: Bahrein, Burma (Myanmar), Hong Kong (part of China since 1997), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Quatar, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe.As Head of the Commonwealth, The Queen’s role is symbolic and has no constitutional functions attached to it. The Monarch personally reinforces the links by which the Commonwealth joins people together from around the world. This is done through Commonwealth visits, regular contact with the Commonwealth Secretary General and his Secretariat (the Commonwealth’s central organisation, which co-ordinates many Commonwealth activities and which is based in London) and Heads of Government, attending the Commonwealth Day Observance in London, broadcasting her annual Christmas and Commonwealth Day messages, acting as patron for Commonwealth cultural events and often attending the Commonwealth Games to open or close them.

The Commonwealth adopted a new flag in 1976 containing a stylised globe surrounded by a large letter C for Commonwealth. This replaced the traditional use of the British Union Flag as the flag of the Commonwealth, which was felt was no longer appropriate as it had been the symbol of the former British Empire. Commonwealth countries were independent and most were republics, so a new symbol was needed to reflect that fact.

During her reign, The Queen has visited every country in the Commonwealth (with the exception of Mozambique and Cameroon, who joined in 1995) and made many repeat visits, either as a multiple visit (e.g. Anguilla, Dominica, Guyana, Belize, Cayman Islands, Jamaica, Bahamas and Bermuda inFebruary/March 1994) or to one country (such as Canada in June/July 1997, which included the celebration of Canada’s National Day, and Jamaica in 2002). The Queen also visited India and Pakistan in October 1997, to mark the fiftieth anniversary of their independence from Britain, which led to the formation of the modern Commonwealth. One third of The Queen’s total overseas visits are to Commonwealth countries. The Queen visited Canada in 2005 for the centennial anniversaries of the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales and other members of the Royal family also pay frequent visits to the Commonwealth. A meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) is usually held once every two years, at locations throughout the Commonwealth. The Queen is normally present in the host country, during which she has a series of private meetings with the Commonwealth countries’ leaders. The Queen also attends a reception and dinner during the conference period at which she makes a speech. These meetings began as Colonial Conferences in London in 1887, being restyled as Imperial Conferences in 1911, continuing as such until 1937, then stopping due to the Second World War. They were resumed in 1944 as British Empire and Commonwealth Conferences, becoming just Commonwealth Conferences in 1949. In 1973, they began to be held in different parts of the Commonwealth and took on the title of CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting). Since 1977, Commonwealth Day is celebrated throughout the Commonwealth on the second Monday in March; this was approved by Heads of Government as a day when children throughout the Commonwealth, for whom the day is particularly intended, would be at school. To mark the day, The Queen broadcasts a Commonwealth Day message which, like the Christmas Message, is delivered by The Queen as Head of the Commonwealth to the peoples of the Commonwealth as a whole. These messages are unique in that they are delivered on The Queen’s own responsibility, drafted without Ministerial advice. Each year, The Queen also attends an ‘Observance for Commonwealth Day’ which is an interdenominational service held in Westminster Abbey, followed by a reception hosted by the Secretary General (the Head of the Commonwealth Secretariat).

In 2005, the Commonwealth Business Council recommended that the Commonwealth must strengthen its economic position in the world and that by working together, the Commonwealth has the potential to be a giant in world economics. There is great interest in the Commonwealth around the world. Some countries that have left it have also returned. South Africa left in 1961 and returned in 1994, Pakistan left in 1972 and returned in 1989 and Fiji left in 1987 and returned in 1997. Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen and Sudan are former British Empire territories that never joined the Commonwealth. Yemen and Sudan have applied to join by 2009. Israel and Palestine have expressed interested in joining. When a Civil Administration takes power in Myanmar (Burma), it might also apply to join. Somaliland wants to join the Commonwealth also if it gains international recognition. Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony in Africa, was allowed to join the Commonwealth in 1995 as a special case due to its interaction with surrounding Commonwealth members. The Commonwealtlh has evolved three times. The original British Commonwealth formed in 1931 contained only autonomous dominions of the British Empire, the Commonwealth of Nations formed in 1949 includes republics and national monarchies as well as realms. In 1995, the first non-former British Empire country joined. In 2007, membership criteria was reviewed and changed to requiring only an historic constitutional connection with an existing Commonwealth member, as well as adherence to democracy and civil rights, official use of English and accepting the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. Some more non-former British Empire countries may now join. Rwanda, Algeria and Madagascar, which are all nations with no historical links to the British Empire, similar to Mozambique, have applied to join the Commonwealth by 2009.

Senegal, East Timor and Cambodia have also expressed an interested in joining the Commonwealth. In the future, the world may see a Commonwealth that has grown far beyond the countries of the original British Empire. Some Commonwealth member nations are also members of other post-colonial associations because of previous historical links with other European Empires. Currently, Canada, Saint Lucia, Mauritius, Seychelles and Vanuatu are also members of La Francophonie, which is the French-speaking equivalent to the Commonwealth, and Mozambique is also a member of the C.P.L.P. (the Community of Portuguese- Speaking Nations). The United Kingdom, Cyprus and Malta are also members of the European Union.

Background to the International Court of Justice

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

The International Court of Justice commonly referred to as the World Court or ICJ is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly.

Activities

Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, the Court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to that of its predecessor, is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court.[2] The Court’s workload covers a wide range of judicial activity. To date, the ICJ has dealt with relatively few cases. However, since the 1980s there has been a clear increase in willingness to use the Court, especially among developing countries. After the court ruled that the U.S.’s covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law (Nicaragua v. United States), the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986. The United States accepts the court’s jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis.[3] Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council.

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.

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

Successes of the League of Nations

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

In view of the League’s desire to end war, the only criteria that can be used to classify a success, was whether war was avoided and a peaceful settlement formulated after a crisis between two nations.

The League experienced success in:

The Aaland Islands (1921)
These islands are near enough equal distant between Finland and Sweden. They had traditionally belonged to Finland but most of the islanders wanted to be governed by Sweden. Neither Sweden nor Finland could come to a decision as to who owned the islands and in 1921 they asked the League to adjudicate. The League’s decision was that they should remain with Finland but that no weapons should ever be kept there. Both countries accepted the decision and it remains in force to this day.

Upper Silesia (1921)
The Treaty of Versailles had given the people of Upper Silesia the right to have a referendum on whether they wanted to be part of Germany or part of Poland. In this referendum, 700,000 voted for Germany and 500,000 for Poland. This close result resulted in rioting between those who expected Silesia to be made part of Germany and those who wanted to be part of Poland. The League was asked to settle this dispute. After a six-week inquiry, the League decided to split Upper Silesia between Germany and Poland. The League’s decision was accepted y both countries and by the people in Upper Silesia.

Memel (1923)
Memel was/is a port in Lithuania. Most people who lived in Memel were Lithuanians and, therefore, the government of Lithuania believed that the port should be governed by it. However, the Treaty of Versailles had put Memel and the land surrounding the port under the control of the League. For three years, a French general acted as a governor of the port but in 1923 the Lithuanians invaded the port. The League intervened and gave the area surrounding Memel to Lithuania but they made the port an “international zone”. Lithuania agreed to this decision. Though this can be seen as a League success – as the issue was settled – a counter argument is that what happened was the result of the use of force and that the League responded in a positive manner to those (the Lithuanians) who had used force.

Turkey (1923)
The League failed to stop a bloody war in Turkey (see League failures) but it did respond to the humanitarian crisis caused by this war.

1,400,000 refugees had been created by this war with 80% of them being women and children. Typhoid and cholera were rampant. The League sent doctors from the Health Organisation to check the spread of disease and it spent £10 million on building farms, homes etc for the refugees. Money was also invested in seeds, wells and digging tools and by 1926, work was found for 600,000 people.

A member of the League called this work “the greatest work of mercy which mankind has undertaken.”

Greece and Bulgaria (1925)
Both these nations have a common border. In 1925, sentries patrolling this border fired on one another and a Greek soldier was killed. The Greek army invaded Bulgaria as a result. The Bulgarians asked the League for help and the League ordered both armies to stop fighting and that the Greeks should pull out of Bulgaria. The League then sent experts to the area and decided that Greece was to blame and fined her £45,000. Both nations accepted the decision.

Introduction to International Civil Aviation Organization

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

A specialized agency of the United Nations, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was created in 1944 to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation throughout the world. It sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity, as well as for aviation environmental protection. The Organization serves as the forum for cooperation in all fields of civil aviation among its 190 Member States.

Vision & Mission
The ICAO or International Civil Aviation Organization is the global forum for civil aviation. ICAO works to achieve its vision of safe, secure and sustainable development of civil aviation through the cooperation of its Member States.
ICAO STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES 2011-2012-2013

As the global forum for cooperation among its Member States and with the world aviation community, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) sets standards and recommended practices for the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation. In its ongoing mission to foster a global civil aviation system that consistently and uniformly operates at peak efficiency and provides optimum safety, security and sustainability, ICAO has established three Strategic Objectives:

Safety – Enhance global civil aviation safety
Security – Enhance global civil aviation security
Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development of Air Transport – Foster harmonized and economically viable development of international civil aviation that does not unduly harm the environment

Foundation of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
The consequence of the studies initiated by the US and subsequent consultations between the Major Allies was that the US government extended an invitation to 55 States or authorities to attend, in November 1944, an International Civil Aviation Conference in Chicago. Fifty-four States attended this Conference end of which a Convention on International Civil Aviation was signed by 52 States set up the permanent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as a means to secure international co-operation an highest possible degree of uniformity in regulations and standards, procedures and organisation regarding civil aviation matters. At the same time the International Services Transit Agreement and the International Air Transport Agreement were signed.

The most important work accomplished by the Chicago Conference was in the technical field because the Conference laid the foundation for a set of rules and regulations regarding air navigation as a whole which brought safety in flying a great step forward and paved the way for the application of a common air navigation system throughout the world.

Because of the inevitable delays in the ratification of the Convention, the Conference had signed an Interim Agreement, which foresaw the creation of a Provisional International Organization of a technical and advisory nature with the purpose of collaboration in the field of international civil aviation (PICAO). This Organization was in operation from August 1945 to April 1947 when the permanent ICAO came into being. Its seat was in Montreal, Canada and in 1947 the change from PICAO to ICAO was little more than a formality. However, it also brought about the end of ICAN because, now that ICAO was firmly established, the ICAN member States agreed to dissolve ICAN by naming ICAO specifically as its successor Organization.

From the very assumption of activities of PICAO/ICAO, it was realised that the work of the Secretariat, especially in the technical field, would have to cover two major activities:
a. those which covered generally applicable rules and regulations concerning training and licensing of aeronautical personnel both in the air and on the ground, communication systems and procedures, rules for the air and air traffic control systems and practices, airworthiness requirements for aircraft engaged in international air navigation as well as their registration and identification, aeronautical meteorology and maps and charts. For obvious reasons, these aspects required uniformity on a world-wide scale if truly international air navigation was to become a possibility. Activities in these fields had therefore to be handled by a central agency, i.e. ICAO headquarters, if local deviations or separate developments were to be avoided;
b. those concerning the practical application of air navigation services and facilities by States and their co-ordinated implementation in specific areas where operating conditions and other relevant parameters were comparable.

To meet the latter objective it was agreed to sub-divide the surface of the earth into a number of “regions” within which distinct and specific air navigation problems of a similar nature existed. A typical example of this process is illustrated by a comparison of the so-called “North Atlantic Region (NAT)”, where the primary problems concern long-range overseas navigation, with the “European-Mediterranean region (EUR)” where the co-ordination of trans-European operations with domestic and short-range international traffic constitutes the major problem. Once the regions created, it was necessary to provide bodies which were able to assist States in the resolution of their specific “regional” problems and it was agreed that this could best be achieved by the creation of a number of Regional Offices which were to be located either in the Region they served or, if more than one Region was to be served by such an Office, as close as possible to the Region concerned.

As a consequence of the above ICAO adopted the concept of Regions and Regional Offices on the understanding that any regional activities could only be undertaken provided they did not conflict with the world-wide activities of the Organization. However, it was also recognised that such activities could vary from Region to Region taking into account the general economic, technical or social environment of the Region concerned.

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