TyroCity: International Organizations

Membership of the United Nations

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

Article 4, UN Charter

Substantive requirements

state
Peace loving
accept obligations, able & willing

Procedural requirements

SC recommends
GA takes a decision

The procedure for Membership is briefly as follows:

The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.
The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.
If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State.
Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

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

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)

Introduction to ILO

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

Who we are
ILO Tripartite constituents

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is the only tripartite U.N. agency with government, employer, and worker representatives. This tripartite structure makes the ILO a unique forum in which the governments and the social partners of the economy of its 183 Member States can freely and openly debate and elaborate labour standards and policies.

International Labour Office
The International Labour Office is the permanent secretariat of the International Labour Organization. It is the focal point for International Labour Organization’s overall activities, which it prepares under the scrutiny of the Governing Body and under the leadership of the Director-General.

The Office employs some 2,700 officials from over 150 nations at its headquarters in Geneva, and in around 40 field offices around the world. Among these officials, 900 work in technical cooperation programmes and projects.

The Office also contains a research and documentation centre.

ILO Director-General
A new Director-General is elected every five years by the Governing Body. Subject to the instructions of the Governing Body, the Director-General is responsible for the efficient conduct of the International Labour Office and other duties as may be assigned.

The current Director General, Mr. Juan Somavia was elected to serve as the ninth Director-General of the ILO by the Governing Body on 23 March 1998. His term of office began on 4 March 1999, when he became the first representative from the Southern hemisphere to head the Organization. Mr. Somavia was re-elected for a second five-year term in March 2003 and for a third term on 18 November 2008.

ILO Administrative Tribunal
The Tribunal examines employment-related complaints from officials of the International Labour Office and of the other international organizations that have recognized its jurisdiction.

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization is the heir of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, which was competent from 1927 to 1946 to hear complaints against the Secretariat of the League of Nations and against the International Labour Office. Since 1947 the Tribunal has heard complaints from serving and former officials of the International Labour Office and of the other international organizations that have recognized its jurisdiction. It is currently open to approximately 46,000 international civil servants who are serving or former officials of some sixty organizations.

The Tribunal is composed of seven judges who must be of different nationalities, as was the case for the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations. They are appointed by the International Labour Conference on a recommendation of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office for a renewable period of 3 years.

The Tribunal meets twice a year, in spring and autumn, for a period of 3 weeks, at the headquarters of the ILO in Geneva. At each session it delivers approximately fifty judgments.

The Tribunal is serviced by a Registry, comprising a Registrar and a small team of legal officers. The Registry’s secretariat receives the documents submitted in the course of the proceedings and replies to requests for information.

ILO Centres and Institutes
The ILO is a major resource centre for information, analysis and guidance on the world of work. Research accompanies and reinforces all of the Organization’s standard-setting and technical cooperation activities and the ILO is universally regarded as an authoritative source of knowledge on the world of work. Its institutes and Centres are specialized departments of the Organization which provide specialized support for ILO’s offices and constituents.

International Institute for Labour Studies
The ILO International Institute for Labour Studies in Geneva promotes policy research and public discussion on emerging issues of concern to the ILO and its constituents – labour, business and government.

The organizing theme of the Institute’s programmes is the notion of “decent work”. The Institute’s programmes seek to contribute to the development of the analytical and empirical foundations of decent work and a broader understanding of the policy instruments necessary to implement it in practice.

The Institute provides:

International research programmes and networks linking academics with business, labour, and government practitioners, to explore emerging policy issues of potential relevance for the ILO and contribute to policy formulation.
Educational programmes to assist trade unions, employers’ organizations and labour administrations in developing their institutional capacities for research, analysis, and policy formulation in the economic and social fields.

The Institute’s means of action include research, workshops and seminars, internship programmes, a visiting scholar programme and publications. The Institute’s programmes draw upon the ILO’s operational experience, its field structure and its unique global databases on development policy and social legislation in over 170 countries.

International Training Centre of the ILO
As skilled human resources are central to the pursuit of decent work, in 1965, the ILO established its training arm in Turin, Italy, to assist countries in their social and economic development through training. Working in close partnership with regional and national training institutions, the Centre contributes to disseminating the ILO’s principles and policies, and to strengthening the capacity of national institutions to implement relevant programmes, in line with its strategic objectives.

It offers training/learning opportunities and related services to decision makers, managers, practitioners and trainers from governments, workers’ organizations, employers’ organizations and their partner institutions. It has partnerships with regional and national training institutions and its services are available to the United Nations system as a whole, including ILO staff.

To date, over 90,000 women and men from 170 nations have benefited from its services since it opened in 1965. The annual number of activities exceeds 300 standard courses, customized learning events, comprehensive training projects, advisory services, and training material design and production. Around half the activities take place on-campus and the rest in the field. Besides group training, the Centre organizes, on request, learning programmes for individuals who are placed in public and private institutions and organizations. Increasingly, it uses information technology, including the Internet, to offer distance learning and tutoring services.

Course calendar for the International Training Centre, Turin
The Inter-American Centre for Knowledge Development in Vocational Training (OIT/CINTERFOR)

The Inter-American Centre for Knowledge Development in Vocational Training (ILO/Cinterfor) is a technical service of the ILO, with the mission of the development of a permanent learning and horizontal cooperation community among the national organizations in charge of vocational training. It works as the core of a system integrated by vocational training-related institutions and organisations belonging to ILO Member States in the world.

International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre (CIS)

CIS is the knowledge management arm of SafeWork of the International Labour Organization (ILO). Its goal is to ensure that workers and everyone concerned with their protection have access to the facts they need to prevent occupational injuries and diseases. The network of CIS Centres contributes to the exchange of information among persons responsible for the establishment and implementation of national policies and programmes.

CIS continuously monitors world literature on occupational safety and health through its contacts with publishers and with about 150 centres at the national and regional level around the world. In addition to covering up-to-date OSH literature, CIS also provides a basic reference service to its worldwide users by delivering information on conferences and educational opportunities in the OSH field, as well as in maintaining directories of various kinds.

CIS was founded in 1959 as a joint endeavour of the ILO, the International Social Security Association (ISSA), the European Coal and Steel Community (one of the predecessors of the European Union) and occupational safety and health institutions in 11 European countries. Very quickly, the CIS network of centres expanded to include members from other continents, and by now it has grown to cover 110 countries all over the world.

Mission and objectives

The primary goal of the ILO today is to promote opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity.” - Juan Somavia, ILO Director-General

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is devoted to promoting social justice and internationally recognized human and labour rights, pursuing its founding mission that labour peace is essential to prosperity. Today, the ILO helps advance the creation of decent work and the economic and working conditions that give working people and business people a stake in lasting peace, prosperity and progress. Its tripartite structure provides a unique platform for promoting decent work for all women and men. Its main aims are to promote rights at work, encourage decent employment opportunities, enhance social protection and strengthen dialogue on work-related issues.

The ILO has four strategic objectives

Promote and realize standards and fundamental principles and rights at work
Create greater opportunities for women and men to decent employment and income
Enhance the coverage and effectiveness of social protection for all
Strengthen tripartism and social dialogue

In support of its goals, the ILO offers unmatched expertise and knowledge about the world of work, acquired over more than 90 years of responding to the needs of people everywhere for decent work, livelihoods and dignity. It serves its tripartite constituents – and society as a whole – in a variety of ways, including:

Formulation of international policies and programmes to promote basic human rights, improve working and living conditions, and enhance employment opportunities
Creation of international labour standards backed by a unique system to supervise their application
An extensive programme of international technical cooperation formulated and implemented in an active partnership with constituents, to help countries put these policies into practice in an effective manner
Training, education and research activities to help advance all of these efforts

Decent work agenda

Promoting Decent work for all

Work is central to people’s well-being. In addition to providing income, work can pave the way for broader social and economic advancement, strengthening individuals, their families and communities. Such progress, however, hinges on work that is decent. Decent work sums up the aspirations of people in their working lives.

The ILO has developed an agenda for the community of work. It provides support through integrated Decent Work Country Programmes developed in coordination with its constituents. Putting the Decent Work Agenda into practice is achieved through the implementation of the ILO’s four strategic objectives, with gender equality as a crosscutting objective:

Creating Jobs – an economy that generates opportunities for investment, entrepreneurship, skills development, job creation and sustainable livelihoods.
Guaranteeing rights at work – to obtain recognition and respect for the rights of workers. All workers, and in particular disadvantaged or poor workers, need representation, participation, and laws that work for their interests.
Extending social protection – to promote both inclusion and productivity by ensuring that women and men enjoy working conditions that are safe, allow adequate free time and rest, take into account family and social values, provide for adequate compensation in case of lost or reduced income and permit access to adequate healthcare.
Promoting social dialogue – Involving strong and independent workers’ and employers’ organizations is central to increasing productivity, avoiding disputes at work, and building cohesive societies.

An ILO concept, an international consensus
The Decent Work concept was formulated by the ILO’s constituents – governments and employers and workers – as a means to identify the Organization’s major priorities. It is based on the understanding that work is a source of personal dignity, family stability, peace in the community, democracies that deliver for people, and economic growth that expands opportunities for productive jobs and enterprise development.

Decent Work reflects priorities on the social, economic and political agenda of countries and the international system. In a relatively short time this concept has forged an international consensus among governments, employers, workers and civil society that productive employment and Decent Work are key elements to achieving a fair globalization, reducing poverty and achieving equitable, inclusive, and sustainable development.

Making Decent Work a global goal and a national reality

The overall goal of Decent Work is to effect positive change in people’s lives at the national and local levels. The ILO provides support through integrated Decent Work Country Programmes developed in coordination with ILO constituents. They define the priorities and the targets within national development frameworks and aim to tackle major Decent Work deficits through efficient programmes that embrace each of the strategic objectives.

The ILO operates with other partners within and beyond the UN family to provide in-depth expertise and key policy instruments for the design and implementation of these programmes. It also provides support for building the institutions needed to carry them forward and for measuring progress. The balance within these programmes differs from country to country, reflecting their needs, resources and priorities.

Progress also requires action at the global level. The Decent Work agenda offers a basis for a more just and sustainable framework for global development. The ILO works to develop “decent work”-oriented approaches to economic and social policy in partnership with the principal institutions and actors of the multilateral system and the global economy.

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.

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.

Support of military dictatorships

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

The role of the Bretton Woods institutions has been controversial since the late Cold War period, due to claims that the IMF policy makers supported anti-communist military dictatorships friendly to American and European corporations. Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to their views of human rights, and labor rights. The controversy has helped spark the Anti-globalization movement. Arguments in favor of the IMF say that economic stability is a precursor to democracy; however, critics highlight various examples in which democratized countries fell after receiving IMF loans.

In the 1960s, the IMF and the World Bank supported the government of Brazil’s military dictator Castello Branco with tens of millions of dollars of loans and credit that were denied to previous democratically elected governments.

Countries that were or are under a military dictatorship whilst being members of the IMF/World Bank (support from various sources in $Billion):

Support of military dictatorships

Support of military dictatorships
Country indebted to IMF/World Bank	Dictator	In power	*Debt %^[^{clarification needed}*^] at start of dictatorship**	Debt % at end of dictatorship	Country debts in 1996	Dictator debts generated $ billion	Dictator generated debt % of total debt
Argentina	Military dictatorship	1976 - 1983	9.3	48.9	93.8	39.6	42%
Bolivia	Military dictatorship	1962 - 1980	0	2.7	5.2	2.7	52%
Brazil	Military dictatorship	1964 - 1985	5.1	105.1	179	100	56%
Chile	Augusto Pinochet	1973 - 1989	5.2	18	27.4	12.8	47%
El Salvador	Military dictatorship	1979 - 1994	0.9	2.2	2.2	1.3	59%
Ethiopia	Mengistu Haile Mariam	1977 - 1991	0.5	4.2	10	3.7	37%
Haiti	Jean-Claude Duvalier	1971 - 1986	0	0.7	0.9	0.7	78%
Indonesia	Suharto	1967 - 1998	3	129	129	126	98%
Kenya	Moi	1979 - 2002	2.7	6.9	6.9	4.2	61%
Liberia	Doe	1979 - 1990	0.6	1.9	2.1	1.3	62%
Malawi	Banda	1964 - 1994	0.1	2	2.3	1.9	83%
Nigeria	Buhari/Babangida/Abacha	1984 - 1998	17.8	31.4	31.4	13.6	43%
Pakistan	Zia-ul Haq	1977 - 1988	7.6	17
Pakistan	Pervez Musharraf	1999 - 2008
Paraguay	Stroessner	1954 - 1989	0.1	2.4	2.1	2.3	96%
Philippines	Marcos	1965 - 1986	1.5	28.3	41.2	26.8	65%
Somalia	Siad Barre	1969 - 1991	0	2.4	2.6	2.4	92%
Sudan	Nimeiry/al-Mahdi	1969 - present	0.3	17	17	16.7	98%
Thailand	Military dictatorship	1950 - 1983	0	13.9	90.8	13.9	15%
Zaire/Democratic Republic of the Congo	Mobutu	1965 - 1997	0.3	12.8	12.8	12.5	98%

Notes: Debt at takeover by dictatorship; earliest data published by the World Bank is for 1970. Debt at end of dictatorship (or 1996, most recent date for World Bank data).

Effectiveness

Two criticisms from economists have been that financial aid is always bound to so-called “Conditionalities”, including Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP). It is claimed that conditionalities (economic performance targets established as a precondition for IMF loans) retard social stability and hence inhibit the stated goals of the IMF, while Structural Adjustment Programs lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.

The IMF sometimes advocates “austerity programmes,” increasing taxes even when the economy is weak, in order to generate government revenue and bring budgets closer to a balance, thus reducing budget deficits. Countries are often advised to lower their corporate tax rate. These policies were criticized by Joseph E. Stiglitz, former chief economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank, in his book Globalization and Its Discontents. He argued that by converting to a more Monetarist approach, the fund no longer had a valid purpose, as it was designed to provide funds for countries to carry out Keynesian reflations, and that the IMF “was not participating in a conspiracy, but it was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western financial community”.

Argentina, which had been considered by the IMF to be a model country in its compliance to policy proposals by the Bretton Woods institutions, experienced a catastrophic economic crisis in 2001, which some believe to have been caused by IMF-induced budget restrictions — which undercut the government’s ability to sustain national infrastructure even in crucial areas such as health, education, and security — and privatization of strategically vital national Others attribute the crisis to Argentina’s misdesigned fiscal federalism, which caused subnational spending to increase rapidly. The crisis added to widespread hatred of this institution in Argentina and other South American countries, with many blaming the IMF for the region’s economic problems. The current — as of early 2006 — trend towards moderate left-wing governments in the region and a growing concern with the development of a regional economic policy largely independent of big business pressures has been ascribed to this crisis.

Another example of where IMF Structural Adjustment Programmes aggravated the problem was in Kenya. Before the IMF got involved in the country, the Kenyan central bank oversaw all currency movements in and out of the country. The IMF mandated that the Kenyan central bank had to allow easier currency movement. However, the adjustment resulted in very little foreign investment, but allowed Kamlesh Manusuklal Damji Pattni, with the help of corrupt government officials, to siphon off billions of Kenyan shillings in what came to be known as the Goldenberg scandal, leaving the country worse off than it was before the IMF reforms were implemented.[citation needed] In an interview, the former Romanian Prime Minister Tăriceanu stated that “Since 2005, IMF is constantly making mistakes when it appreciates the country’s economic performances”.

Overall, the IMF success record is perceived as limited.[citation needed] While it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 critics claim over 100 countries (or reputedly most of the Fund’s membership) have experienced a banking collapse that they claim have reduced GDP by four percent or more, far more than at any time in Post-Depression history.[citation needed] The considerable delay in the IMF’s response to any crisis, and the fact that it tends to only respond to them (or even create them) rather than prevent them, has led many economists to argue for reform. In 2006, an IMF reform agenda called the Medium Term Strategy was widely endorsed by the institution’s member countries. The agenda includes changes in IMF governance to enhance the role of developing countries in the institution’s decision-making process and steps to deepen the effectiveness of its core mandate, which is known as economic surveillance or helping member countries adopt macroeconomic policies that will sustain global growth and reduce poverty. On June 15, 2007, the Executive Board of the IMF adopted the 2007 Decision on Bilateral Surveillance, a landmark measure that replaced a 30-year-old decision of the Fund’s member countries on how the IMF should analyze economic outcomes at the country level.

Impact on access to food

A number of civil society organizations have criticized the IMF’s policies for their impact on people’s access to food, particularly in developing countries. In October 2008, former US President Bill Clinton joined this chorus in a speech to the United Nations World Food Day, which criticized the World Bank and IMF for their policies on food and agriculture:

We need the World Bank, the IMF, all the big foundations, and all the governments to admit that, for 30 years, we all blew it, including me when I was President. We were wrong to believe that food was like some other product in international trade, and we all have to go back to a more responsible and sustainable form of agriculture.

— Former US President Bill Clinton, Speech at United Nations World Food Day, October 16, 2008.

Impact on public health

In 2008, a study by analysts from Cambridge and Yale universities published on the open-access Public Library of Science concluded that strict conditions on the international loans by the IMF resulted in thousands of deaths in Eastern Europe by tuberculosis as public health care had to be weakened. In the 21 countries to which the IMF had given loans, tuberculosis deaths rose by 16.6%.
In 2009, a book by Rick Rowden titled, The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against Aids, claimed that the IMF’s monetarist approach towards prioritizing price stability (low inflation) and fiscal restraint (low budget deficits) was unnecessarily restrictive and has prevented developing countries from being able to scale up long-term public investment as a percent of GDP in the underlying public health infrastructure. The book claimed the consequences have been chronically underfunded public health systems, leading to dilapidated health infrastructure, inadequate numbers of health personnel, and demoralizing working conditions that have fueled the “push factors” driving the brain drain of nurses migrating from poor countries to rich ones, all of which has undermined public health systems and the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries.

Impact on environment

IMF policies have been repeatedly criticized for making it difficult for indebted countries to avoid ecosystem-damaging projects that generate cash flow, in particular oil, coal and forest-destroying lumber and agriculture projects. Ecuador for example had to defy IMF advice repeatedly in order to pursue the protection of its rain forests, though paradoxically this need was cited in IMF argument to support that country. The IMF acknowledged this paradox in a March 2010 staff position report which proposed the IMF Green Fund, a mechanism to issue Special Drawing Rights directly to pay for climate harm prevention and potentially other ecological protection as pursued generally by other environmental finance.

While the response to these moves was generally positive possibly because ecological protection and energy and infrastructure transformation are more politically neutral than pressures to change social policy. Some experts voiced concern that the IMF was not representative, and that the IMF proposals to generate only 200 billion dollars/year by 2020 with the SDRs as seed funds, did not go far enough to undo the general incentive to pursue destructive projects inherent in the world commodity trading and banking systems – criticisms often levelled at the WTO and large global banking institutions.

In the context of the May 2010 European banking crisis, some observers also noted that Spain and California, two troubled economies within Europe and the US respectively, and also Germany, the primary and politically most fragile supporter of a Euro currency bailout would benefit from IMF recognition of their leadership in green technology, and directly from Green-Fund generated demand for their exports, which might also improve their credit standing with international bankers.

Criticism from free-market advocates

Typically the IMF and its supporters advocate a monetarist approach. As such, adherents of supply-side economics generally find themselves in open disagreement with the IMF. The IMF frequently advocates currency devaluation, criticized by proponents of supply-side economics as inflationary. Secondly they link higher taxes under “austerity programmes” with economic contraction.

Currency devaluation is recommended by the IMF to the governments of poor nations with struggling economies. Some economists claim these IMF policies are destructive to economic prosperity.
Complaints have also been directed toward the International Monetary Fund gold reserve being undervalued. At its inception in 1945, the IMF pegged gold at US$35 per Troy ounce of gold. In 1973, the administration of US President Richard Nixon lifted the fixed asset value of gold in favor of a world market price. This need to lift the fixed asset value of gold had largely come about because Petrodollars outside the United States were worth more than could be backed by the gold at Fort Knox under the fixed exchange rate system. Following this, the fixed exchange rates of currencies tied to gold were switched to a floating rate, also based on market price and exchange. The fixed rate system had only served to limit the nominal amount of assistance the organization could provide to debt-ridden countries.

Managing director

Historically the IMF’s managing director has been European and the president of the World Bank has been from the United States. However, this standard is increasingly being questioned and competition for these two posts may soon open up to include other qualified candidates from any part of the world. Executive Directors, who confirm the managing director, are voted in by Finance Ministers from countries they represent. The First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, the second-in-command, has traditionally been (and is today) an American.

The IMF is for the most part controlled by the major Western Powers, with voting rights on the Executive board based on a quota derived from the relative size of a country in the global economy. Critics claim that the board rarely votes and passes issues contradicting the will of the US or Europeans, which combined represent the largest bloc of shareholders in the Fund. On the other hand, Executive Directors that represent emerging and developing countries have many times strongly defended the group of nations in their constituency. Alexandre Kafka, who represented several Latin American countries for 32 years as Executive Director (including 21 as the dean of the Board, is a prime example.

Rodrigo Rato became the ninth Managing Director of the IMF on June 7, 2004 and resigned his post at the end of October 2007.
EU ministers agreed on the candidacy of Dominique Strauss-Kahn as managing director of the IMF at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on July 10, 2007. On September 28, 2007, the International Monetary Fund’s 24 executive directors elected Mr. Strauss-Kahn as new managing director, with broad support including from the United States and the 27-nation European Union. Strauss-Kahn succeeded Spain’s Rodrigo de Rato, who retired on October 31, 2007.The only other nominee was Josef Tošovský, a late candidate proposed by Russia. Strauss-Kahn said: “I am determined to pursue without delay the reforms needed for the IMF to make financial stability serve the international community, while fostering growth and employment.”

Dates	Name	Nationality
May 6, 1946 – May 5, 1951	Camille Gutt	Belgium
August 3, 1951 – October 3, 1956	Ivar Rooth	Sweden
November 21, 1956 – May 5, 1963	Per Jacobsson	Sweden
September 1, 1963 – August 31, 1973	Pierre-Paul Schweitzer	France
September 1, 1973 – June 16, 1978	Johannes Witteveen	Netherlands
June 17, 1978 – January 15, 1987	Jacques de Larosière	France
January 16, 1987 – February 14, 2000	Michel Camdessus	France
May 1, 2000 – March 4, 2004	Horst Köhler	Germany
June 7, 2004 – October 31, 2007	Rodrigo Rato	Spain
November 1, 2007 – present	Dominique Strauss-Kahn	France

In the media

Life and Debt, a documentary film, deals with the IMF’s policies’ influence on Jamaica and its economy from a critical point of view.

The Debt of Dictators explores the lending of billions of dollars by the IMF, World Bank multinational banks and other international financial institutions to brutal dictators throughout the world. (see IMF/World Bank support of military dictatorships)

ICJ’s Contribution in Development of International Law

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

Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. This occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case, when Nicaragua brought the issue of the U.S.’s non-compliance with the Court’s decision before the Security Council.[5] Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply. Furthermore, the most effective form to take action for the Security Council, coercive action under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, can be justified only if international peace and security are at stake. The Security Council has never done this so far.

The relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council, and the separation of their powers, was considered by the Court in 1992 in the Pan Am case. The Court had to consider an application from Libya for the order of provisional measures to protect its rights, which, it alleged, were being infringed by the threat of economic sanctions by the United Kingdom and United States. The problem was that these sanctions had been authorized by the Security Council, which resulted with a potential conflict between the Chapter VII functions of the Security Council and the judicial function of the Court. The Court decided, by eleven votes to five, that it could not order the requested provisional measures because the rights claimed by Libya, even if legitimate under theMontreal Convention, prima facie could not be regarded as appropriate since the action was ordered by the Security Council. In accordance with Article 103 of the UN Charter, obligations under the Charter took precedence over other treaty obligations. Nevertheless the Court declared the application admissible in 1998.[20] A decision on the merits has not been given since the parties (United Kingdom, United States and Libya) settled the case out of court in 2003.

There was a marked reluctance on the part of a majority of the Court to become involved in a dispute in such a way as to bring it potentially into conflict with the Council. The Court stated in theNicaragua case that there is no necessary inconsistency between action by the Security Council and adjudication by the ICJ. However, where there is room for conflict, the balance appears to be in favor of the Security Council.

Should either party fail “to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court”, the Security Council may be called upon to “make recommendations or decide upon measures” if the Security Council deems such actions necessary. In practice, the Court’s powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the Court’s ruling, and by the Security Council’s unwillingness to impose consequences. However, in theory, “so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal,” and “by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party.”

For example, the United States had previously accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946, but in Nicaragua v. United States withdrew its acceptance following the Court’s judgment in 1984 that called on the U.S. to “cease and to refrain” from the “unlawful use of force” against the government of Nicaragua. The Court ruled (with only the American judge dissenting) that the United States was “in breach of its obligation under the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua” and ordered the United States to pay war reparations.

Examples of contentious cases

A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law.[21]
A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between them.[22]
A complaint by Pakistan on behalf of the people of Kashmir over oppression against India and charged it with State terrorism directly continuing violations of the international law.
A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area.[23]
A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization regarding their actions in the Kosovo War. This was denied on 15 December 2004 due to lack of jurisdiction, because the FRY was not a party to the ICJ statute at the time it made the application.[24]
A complaint by the Republic of Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) that Greece is, by vetoing their accession to NATO, in violation of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995[25] between the two countries, was decided in favor of Macedonia on 5 December 2011.[26]

Generally, the Court has been most successful resolving border delineation and the use of oceans and waterways. While the Court has, in some instances, resolved claims by one State espoused on behalf of its nationals, the Court has generally refrained from hearing contentious cases that are political in nature, due in part to its lack of enforcement mechanism and its lack of compulsory jurisdiction. The Court has generally found it did not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the use of force.

Law applied

When deciding cases, the Court applies international law as summarised in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute provides that in arriving at its decisions the Court shall apply international conventions, international custom, and the “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations”. It may also refer to academic writing (“the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations”) and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law, although the Court is not formally bound by its previous decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis. Article 59 makes clear that the common law notion of precedent or stare decisis does not apply to the decisions of the ICJ. The Court’s decision binds only the parties to that particular controversy. Under 38(1)(d), however, the Court may consider its own previous decisions.

If the parties agree, they may also grant the Court the liberty to decide ex aequo et bono (“in justice and fairness”),[27] granting the ICJ the freedom to make an equitable decision based on what is fair under the circumstances. This provision has not been used in the Court’s history. So far the International Court of Justice has dealt with about 130 cases.

Procedure

The ICJ is vested with the power to make its own rules. Court procedure is set out in Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice 1978 (as amended on 29 September 2005).[9]

Cases before the ICJ will follow a standard pattern. The case is lodged by the applicant who files a written memorial setting out the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction and the merits of its claim. The respondent may accept the Court’s jurisdiction and file its own memorial on the merits of the case.

Preliminary objections

A respondent who does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court may raise Preliminary Objections. Any such objections must be ruled upon before the Court can address the merits of the applicant’s claim. Often a separate public hearing is held on the Preliminary Objections and the Court will render a judgment. Respondents normally file Preliminary Objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and/or the admissibility of the case. Inadmissibility refers to a range of arguments about factors the Court should take into account in deciding jurisdiction; for example, that the issue is not justiciable or that it is not a “legal dispute”.

In addition, objections may be made because all necessary parties are not before the Court. If the case necessarily requires the Court to rule on the rights and obligations of a state that has not consented to the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court will not proceed to issue a judgment on the merits. If the Court decides it has jurisdiction and the case is admissible, the respondent will then be required to file a Memorial addressing the merits of the applicant’s claim. Once all written arguments are filed, the Court will hold a public hearing on the merits.

Once a case has been filed, any party (but usually the Applicant) may seek an order from the Court to protect the status quo pending the hearing of the case. Such orders are known as Provisional (or Interim) Measures and are analogous to interlocutory injunctions in United States law. Article 41 of the statute allows the Court to make such orders. The Court must be satisfied to have prima facie jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before granting provisional measures.

Applications to intervene

In cases where a third state’s interests are affected, that state may be permitted to intervene in the case, and participate as a full party. Under Article 62, a state “with an interest of a legal nature” may apply; however, it is within the Court’s discretion whether or not to allow the intervention. Intervention applications are rare — the first successful application occurred in 1991.

Judgment and remedies

Once deliberation has taken place, the Court will issue a majority opinion. Individual judges may issue separate opinions (if they agree with the outcome reached in the judgment of the court but differ in their reasoning) or dissenting opinions (if they disagree with the majority). No appeal is possible, though any party may ask for the court to clarify if there is a dispute as to the meaning or scope of the court’s judgment.

Criticisms

The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority. As with United Nations criticisms as a whole, many of these criticisms refer more to the general authority assigned to the body by member states through its charter than to specific problems with the composition of judges or their rulings. Major criticisms include:

“Compulsory” jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and, as such, instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior nor inferior against another. Therefore there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, due to the absence of binding force, although there are 191 member states of the ICJ, the members do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, the membership of the UN and ICJ does not give the automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it’s the consent of each states to follow the jurisdiction that matters.
Organizations, private enterprises, and individuals cannot have their cases taken to the International Court, such as to appeal a national supreme court’s ruling. U.N. agencies likewise cannot bring up a case except in advisory opinions (a process initiated by the court and non-binding). Only the states can bring the cases and become the defendants of the cases. This also means that the potential victims of crimes against humanity, such as minor ethnic groups or indigenous peoples.
Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the International Court. Unlike ICJ, international thematic courts like ICC work independently from United Nations. Such dualistic structure between various international courts sometimes makes it hard for the courts to engage in effective and collective jurisdiction.
The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of even cases to which they consented in advance to be bound.[29] Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc.. Therefore it is very likely for the member states of Security Council to avoid the responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States

UNICEF in Nepal

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

The 2008-2010 programme is focussed on the poorest and most excluded, including children and young people impacted by the conflict. It stresses women’s and young people’s participation and seeks to assist local communities to better manage their development needs – and importantly to strengthen the relationship between community and government. At the policy level, UNICEF works to develop appropriate legislation and policies for children, with the government. The programme is also prepared for emergency response given Nepal’s particular susceptibility to natural disasters.

The full three year programme is budgeted at USD 68,214,000, of which USD 20,214,000 has been allocated internally. USD 48,000,000 is required to be raised from donors over the three year period. This document outlines the seven programme areas of UNICEF’s work in Nepal, indicating budget requirements for every project in the 2008 – 2010 programme.

DACAW
The Decentralised Action for Children and Women (DACAW) approach is UNICEF’s primary vehicle for directing a range of interventions to rural communities across Nepal. It aims to strengthen the capacity of individuals and communities; improve the delivery of necessary services; ensure local government plans and implements effective programmes; and support policies for decentralisation in favour of children and women. UNICEF’s sectoral programmes are channelled through DACAW in 23 of 75 districts in Nepal.

Child Protection
UNICEF’s Child Protection programme aims to strengthen the capacity of the Government and civil society to protect children against violence, exploitation and abuse and seeks to support the building of protective systems covering all types of child rights violations.

Education
The Education programme aims to improve access to quality learning opportunities for all children, and enable girls and disadvantaged children to complete a basic education cycle and graduate to lower secondary level.

Health and Nutrition
The Health and Nutrition programme aims to improve access to quality health interventions and improved services for maternal, newborn and children’s health.

HIV/AIDS
The HIV/AIDS programme aims to reduce new HIV infections among young people and to provide access to preventive services for AIDS treatment, care and support for children, pregnant women and adolescents.

WASH
The water, sanitation and hygiene programme aims to increase access to sustainable and safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, and improved hygiene practices in schools and communities, thus contributing to a reduction of related diseases.

Social Policy
The social policy programme supports the government in the development of policies, legislation and budgets that advance women’s and children’s rights, especially among the most marginalised groups. This programme also covers external relations work and monitoring of the situation of children and women in Nepal, and evaluation of programmatic response effectiveness.

History of UNICEF in Nepal

UNICEF celebrated 40 years of work in Nepal in 2008 and has participated in many of the development strides the country has taken in that time from basic services in the 60s, immunisations in the 70s, early childhood rights, education and protection in the 80s, empowering communities to monitor and advocate for their own health and education needs in the 90s, and an emphasis on protection during the conflict in the 2000s.

The 2008-2010 programme is focussed on the poorest and most excluded, including young people impacted by the conflict. It stresses women’s and young people’s participation and seeks to assist local communities to better manage their development needs – and importantly to strengthen the relationship between community and government. The programme works in the Child Protection, Education, Health, HIV/AIDS, Water and Sanitation, and Social Policy Sectors. Programmes are delivered both nationally and through UNICEF’s Decentralised Action for Children and Women approach (DACAW).

At the policy level, UNICEF works to develop appropriate legislation and policies for children with the government. The programme is also prepared for emergency response given Nepal’s particular susceptibility to natural disasters.

Works of UNICEF

Decentralised Action for Children and Women

The Decentralised Action for Children and Women (DACAW) approach is UNICEF’s primary vehicle for directing a range of interventions to rural communities across Nepal.

Child Protection

Building an environment that protects children against violence, exploitation and abuse

Child Protection Systems
Children Affected by Armed Conflict
Legislation and Policies for Child Protection

Education
Quality primary education for all children in Nepal

Early Childhood Development
Formal Primary Education
Non-formal Primary Education
Peace and Emergency Education

Health and Nutrition
For improved survival, growth and development of children and women

Child Survival
Maternal Health
Nutrition
National Health Sector Support

HIV and AIDS
Reducing the spread

PMTCT
Paediatric HIV and AIDS Treatment
Adolescent HIV and AIDS Prevention
Protection and Care for Children Affected by HIV and AIDS

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

Clean water and sanitation saves lives

Quality Water Supply
Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene
National District Level Sector Support

Social Policy

UNICEF supports the Government in development of policies, legislation and budgets that advance women’s and children’s rights, especially among the most marginalized groups.

Emergencies

UNICEF supports the government and key partners to enhance knowledge and skills necessary to meet the immediate needs of children affected by humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters.

Communication for Development

UNICEF promotes positive individual behavior and social change that is an integral part of development programmes, policy advocacy and humanitarian work.

Introduction to The United Nations

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

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the UN Charter had been ratified by a majority of the original 51 Member States. The day is now celebrated each year around the world as United Nations Day.

The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems.

There are currently 193 Members of the United Nations. They meet in the General Assembly, which is the closest thing to a world parliament. Each country, large or small, rich or poor, has a single vote, however, none of the decisions taken by the Assembly are binding. Nevertheless, the Assembly’s decisions become resolutions that carry the weight of world governmental opinion.

The United Nations Headquarters is in New York City but the land and buildings are international territory. The United Nations has its own flag, its own post office and its own postage stamps. Six official languages are used at the United Nations – Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. The UN European Headquarters is in Geneva, Switzerland. It has offices in Vienna, Austria and Economic Commissions in Ethiopia, Jordan, Thailand and Chile. The senior officer of the United Nations Secretariat is the Secretary-General.

The Failures of the League of Nations

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

Article 11 of the League’s Covenant stated:

“Any war of threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safe guard peace.”
Therefore, any conflict between nations which ended in war and the victor of one over the other must be considered a League failure.

Italy (1919)

In 1919, Italian nationalists, angered that the “Big Three” had, in their opinion, broken promises to Italy at the Treaty of Versailles, captured the small port of Fiume. This port had been given to Yugoslavia by the Treaty of Versailles. For 15 months, Fiume was governed by an Italian nationalist called d’Annunzio. The newly created League did nothing. The situation was solved by the Italian government who could not accept that d’Annunzio was seemingly more popular than they were – so they bombarded the port of Fiume and enforced a surrender. In all this the League played no part despite the fact that it had just been set up with the specific task of maintaining peace.

Teschen (1919)

Teschen was a small town between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Its main importance was that it had valuable coal mines there which both the Poles and the Czechs wanted. As both were newly created nations, both wanted to make their respective economies as strong as possible and the acquisition of rich coal mines would certainly help in this respect.

In January 1919, Polish and Czech troops fought in the streets of Teschen. Many died. The League was called on to help and decided that the bulk of the town should go to Poland while Czechoslovakia should have one of Teschen’s suburbs. This suburb contained the most valuable coal mines and the Poles refused to accept this decision. Though no more wholesale violence took place, the two countries continued to argue over the issue for the next twenty years.

Vilna (1920)

Many years before 1920, Vilna had been taken over by Russia. Historically, Vilna had been the capital of Lithuania when the state had existed in the Middle Ages. After World War One, Lithuania had been re-established and Vilna seemed the natural choice for its capital.

However, by 1920, 30% of the population was from Poland with Lithuanians only making up 2% of the city’s population. In 1920, the Poles seized Vilna. Lithuania asked for League help but the Poles could not be persuaded to leave the city. Vilna stayed in Polish hands until the outbreak of World War Two. The use of force by the Poles had won.

War between Russia and Poland (1920 to 1921)

In 1920, Poland invaded land held by the Russians. The Poles quickly overwhelmed the Russian army and made a swift advance into Russia. By 1921, the Russians had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Riga which handed over to Poland nearly 80,000 square kilometres of Russian land. This one treaty all but doubled the size of Poland.

What did the League do about this violation of another country by Poland?

The answer is simple – nothing. Russia by 1919 was communist and this “plague from the East” was greatly feared by the West. In fact, Britain, France and America sent troops to attack Russia after the League had been set up. Winston Churchill, the British War Minister, stated openly that the plan was to strangle Communist Russia at birth. Once again, to outsiders, it seemed as if League members were selecting which countries were acceptable and ones which were not. The Allied invasion of Russia was a failure and it only served to make Communist Russia even more antagonistic to the West.

The invasion of the Ruhr (1923)

The Treaty of Versailles had ordered Weimar Germany to pay reparations for war damages. These could either be paid in money or in kind (goods to the value of a set amount) In 1922, the Germans failed to pay an installment. They claimed that they simply could not rather than did not want to. The Allies refused to accept this and the anti-German feeling at this time was still strong. Both the French and the Belgium’s believed that some form of strong action was needed to ‘teach Germany a lesson’.

In 1923, contrary to League rules, the French and the Belgium’s invaded the Ruhr – Germany’s most important industrial zone. Within Europe, France was seen as a senior League member – like Britain – and the anti-German feeling that was felt throughout Europe allowed both France and Belgium to break their own rules as were introduced by the League. Here were two League members clearly breaking League rules and nothing was done about it.

For the League to enforce its will, it needed the support of its major backers in Europe, Britain and France. Yet France was one of the invaders and Britain was a major supporter of her. To other nations, it seemed that if you wanted to break League rules, you could. Few countries criticised what France and Belgium did. But the example they set for others in future years was obvious. The League clearly failed on this occasion, primarily because it was seen to be involved in breaking its own rules.

Italy and Albania (1923)
The border between Italy and Albania was far from clear and the Treaty of Versailles had never really addressed this issue. It was a constant source of irritation between both nations.

In 1923, a mixed nationality survey team was sent out to settle the issue. Whilst travelling to the disputed area, the Italian section of the survey team, became separated from the main party. The five Italians were shot by gunmen who had been in hiding.

Italy accused Greece of planning the whole incident and demanded payment of a large fine. Greece refused to pay up. In response, the Italians sent its navy to the Greek island of Corfu and bombarded the coastline. Greece appealed to the League for help but Italy, lead by Benito Mussolini, persuaded the League via the Conference of Ambassadors, to fine Greece 50 million lire.

About UNDP

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

For the first time in history, the world may see the end of extreme poverty—as soon as the next generation. But worrisome gaps and risks remain. Stark inequalities persist, and many of those who have escaped poverty are vulnerable to setbacks. As one of the world’s largest multilateral development agencies, present in over 170 countries and territories, UNDP is on the frontlines of anticipating, understanding and acting on today’s opportunities and risks. Our 2014-2017 Strategic Plan articulates our vision. We help countries eradicate extreme poverty, and roll back inequalities and exclusion. We act on three fronts to achieve development that is sustainable, inclusive and resilient. First, UNDP encourages a shift to sustainability, where economic growth benefits poor and marginalized groups, and avoids irreversible environmental damage. Second, we support democratic systems to become inclusive and accountable, and able to meet expectations for participation, services and security. Third, we back efforts to systematically identify and prevent big risks to development, and to help countries and communities with quick recovery, and greater resilience to crisis.

UNDP has nearly 50 years of experience leading the UN’s development work, providing knowledge, practical expertise, and a legacy of trust. Partnership has always been at the core of what we do, but now, more than ever, we are fostering South-South cooperation among developing countries—they have learned many useful lessons through experience. Countries that are already developed also have deep reservoirs of expertise. The imperative is to help link many sources of knowledge and widen the circle of opportunity for all. Through 2015, one of UNDP’s primary responsibilities is supporting countries to make a final, accelerated push to reach the Millennium Development Goals, both in our own programmes and through our leadership of the UN development system. We are also closely engaged in deliberations on a new post-2015 development agenda; our Strategic Plan already aligns with its general directions. We see a more sustainable, inclusive and resilient world within reach, and are fully committed to our role in achieving it.

Africa

Expanding democracy and some of the world’s fastest growing economies are the hallmarks of a new African era. Yet sobering challenges remain, including sharpening disparities between those who benefit from growth and transformation, and those who do not. UNDP helps reduce exclusion, especially for the poorest people, by working to open opportunities—such as to vote, find a job, and access basic, highquality services.

Plans to end poverty in Niger

One of the world’s most impoverished countries, Niger confronts regular droughts and food crises. A better future—and the lives of its people—depend on skillful, stable management of fragile resources. UNDP has backed a national development plan that gives a central role to effective governance in delivering services and solutions to the problems Nigeriens face. This emphasis helped convince international donors to close the plan’s nearly $5 billion funding gap. Among other recent signs of progress: a major programme targeting food security and accelerated actions to achieve the MDGs have boosted irrigated agriculture and reduced malnutrition.

Asia and the Pacific

Asia-Pacific is the world’s fastest growing region as its economic miracle continues to unfold. But this success, while laudable, is vulnerable. Economic growth has not produced enough decent jobs, for example, and natural disasters are more likely to strike here than anywhere else. UNDP helps countries protect and extend development gains.

Recovery and resilience in the Philippines

When Typhoon Haiyan slammed into the Philippines, it became the strongest recorded storm ever to hit land. More than 6,000 people perished; over 14 million suffered losses in one of the country’s poorest areas. UNDP took immediate action to help restore essential infrastructure, livelihoods and public services—65,000 people earned income clearing debris, including from 1,000 kilometres of roads. We also aided national and local governments to manage the response, and, as one of the best precautions against future severe storms, to initiate disaster risk and response mechanisms.

Arab States

The Arab States stand at a crossroads between progress and crisis. UNDP recognizes the region’s many vulnerabilities, and in the face of these, aims to reduce risks and build resilience. Our support includes measures to improve struggling economies, mitigate fallout from instability, and encourage governance that meets expectations for representation and responsive public services.

An inclusive transition in Tunisia

The 2014 passage of Tunisia’s Constitution was a triumph after months of intensive bargaining. It quickly became known for its landmark human rights protections. UNDP helped make the process inclusive through mass public consultations: 80 members of Parliament met with over 6,000 Tunisians citizens in all 24 provinces. Training for over 200 civil society groups facilitated engagement with another 24,000 people. Political leaders agreed that these contributions, amid national transition, were instrumental in forging a consensus that will define the future of the country.

Europe and the CIS

Despite economic crisis, many countries in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States have kept their development on track. But progress has been uneven, with living standards for some groups failing to meet their aspirations. UNDP helps countries pursue development responsive to all citizens, with a sustainable balancing of human and environmental priorities.

Green energy in Kazakhstan

Renewable energy was once a hard sell in Kazakhstan, with its huge fossil fuel reserves. But long-term UNDP advocacy has prompted an embrace of a greener economy. By 2050, half the country’s energy must come from alternative sources; recent changes in national legislation will expedite new investments in renewables. UNDP has helped develop a nascent wind energy industry with enormous potential, and encouraged efforts to green transportation and buildings. Energy efficiency is now central to the $5.8 billion National Programme on the Modernization of Housing and Municipal Infrastructure.

Latin America and the Caribbean

A decade of progress has transformed Latin America and the Caribbean. Still, growth and the reduction of inequalities are slowing, and opportunities are not equal for all groups such as women, youth, and people of African and indigenous descent. UNDP assists countries to probe and cut the roots of persistent disparities. We encourage broad, meaningful participation in development choices as key to both prosperity and stability.

Pathways to peace in El Salvador

Criminal gangs have given El Salvador some of the world’s highest homicide rates. This plague of violence has complex roots encompassing poverty, scarce jobs, social fragmentation and a history of brutal conflict. UNDP supports solutions on many levels, both to stop crime and open doors to productive development. With our assistance, the national Government has adopted its first policy on justice, security and a peaceful coexistence. New systems track crime statistics, and guns laws have been tightened. Job programmes reach at-risk youth, helping them see that a safe, more hopeful life lies within reach.