Please wait as we load hundreds of rigorously documented facts for you.



YOUR SOURCE FOR RELIABLE RESEARCH

What You’ll Find

For example:


Citation Generator
X
APA
MLA
Chicago (for footnotes)
Chicago (for bibliographies)

History

* During World War I, many diplomats and intellectuals called for the creation of an international organization to prevent future wars. In 1918, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson—a founder of modern liberalism—proposed a “general association of nations” as part of his Fourteen Points plan for peace.[1] [2] [3]

* In 1919, about 30 victors of World War I met at the Paris Peace Conference to discuss the terms of peace. They wrote the Treaty of Versailles, which included the creation of the League of Nations.[4]

* The purpose of the League of Nations was to prevent future wars by providing an international system for settling disputes and reducing arms. Members agreed to bring serious disagreements to the League for mediation prior to engaging in war.[5] [6] [7]

* The U.S. Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles on the grounds that it required members to defend one another and gave the League power to “advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.” Opponents of the treaty argued that it would:

  • reduce U.S. ability to defend its own interests.
  • surrender U.S. war powers to the League.
  • entrap the U.S. in European political struggles.[8] [9] [10]

* Some historians believe that the League of Nations was not fully effective because the United States did not join. They claim that the League’s plan to avoid war through economic pressure and negotiation could not be effective without the United States’ participation.[11] [12]

* In 1935, Italy invaded Ethiopia under the leadership of Mussolini. The League of Nations implemented a boycott of Italian imports and stopped exporting arms or raw materials to Italy. However, the British and French governments made a separate settlement with Mussolini, and Italy annexed Ethiopia in 1936. Some historians believe this was a major defeat to the League of Nations’ effectiveness.[13] [14]

* The League of Nations’ covenant required members to reduce their arms to a level determined by the League.[15] However, member states—particularly Germany’s neighbors—were reluctant to reduce their arms without the guarantee that they were safe from invasion. In the 1930s, an arms race began between several nations.[16] [17] [18]

* Members of the League of Nations were able to withdraw from the organization, which made enforcement of its policies difficult. In 1933, Germany withdrew during talks of reducing arms, and Japan withdrew over its invasion into Manchuria.[19] [20]

* World War II began in September 1939 without any of the warring nations attempting to negotiate through the League of Nations. The League did not have any meetings during the war and was officially disbanded in 1946.[21]

* In the 1930s, the United States generally followed a policy of isolationism—refusal to participate in conflicts or politics in Europe and Asia.[22] During this time, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts. These laws initially banned Americans from exporting arms or making loans to nations at war. The final Neutrality Act, passed in 1939, allowed arms trading but continued the ban on making loans and transporting goods to nations in conflict.[23] [24]

* During the early stages of World War II, the United States provided supplies to the U.K. and its allies but refused to join the war.[25]

* In August of 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill issued a joint declaration called the Atlantic Charter. It outlined the countries’ “common principles” for the future, including:

  • safety within national borders.
  • the right of the people to choose their form of government.
  • the “disarmament” of “nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers.”
  • the establishment of a “wider and permanent system” of peace and security.[26] [27]

* After Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941, the U.S. Congress declared war. It then declared war on Germany and Italy, Japan’s allies.[28]

* In 1942, 26 nations signed the Declaration of the United Nations. This document united the countries fighting against the Axis forces of Italy, Germany, and Japan. It also prohibited them from making a separate peace with any of the Axis countries.[29]

* In 1944, representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom met at Dumbarton Oaks, a private mansion in Washington, DC. Their goal was to create a world organization to replace the League of Nations.[30]

* In April of 1945, President Franklin Roosevelt died and was succeeded by President Harry Truman.[31] [32]

* The United Nations Conference on International Organization met in San Francisco from April to June of 1945. Using the Dumbarton Oaks proposal as a guide, 850 delegates from 50 countries met to draft the Charter of the United Nations.[33] [34] The United States’ delegation was led by Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, Jr.[35] [36]

* The secretary-general of the conference was Alger Hiss from the U.S. State Department. Hiss was later convicted of perjury in connection with a Soviet espionage ring and served about three years in prison. In 1996, the U.S. released an intercepted Soviet communication that provided evidence of Hiss’s guilt.[37] [38] [39] [40]

* In June 1945, 50 countries signed the United Nations Charter. The United States Senate approved the United Nations Charter on July 28, 1945 with a vote of 89 to 2.[41] [42]

* The United Nations officially came into existence in October 1945 when the charter was ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and a majority of the other countries.[43]

* As of December of 2018, the United Nations currently has 193 members.[44]

Structure

* The Charter of the United Nations has established six principal organs:[45]

  1. The General Assembly consists of all members of the United Nations and is the main policymaking body.[46] [47]
  2. The Security Council has 15 members who are responsible for maintaining international peace and security.[48]
  3. The International Court of Justice has 15 judges and is the judicial arm of the United Nations.[49] [50]
  4. The Secretariat carries out the United Nations’ administration and is headed by the Secretary-General.[51] [52]
  5. The Economic and Social Council has 54 members who provide a platform for discussions and recommendations regarding economic, social, and environmental issues. [53] [54]
  6. The Trusteeship Council, which is no longer active, provided international supervision over 11 territories that later achieved self-government or independence.[55]

* The General Assembly is the main policymaking body of the United Nations, where:

  • all 193 member states participate, and each country may bring up to five representatives.
  • each country gets one vote.
  • members elect a General Assembly President and 21 Vice-Presidents for a one-year term. The President:
    • suggests a theme for each session’s general debate. The theme for the September 2018 session was “making the United Nations relevant to all people: global leadership and shared responsibilities for peaceful, equitable and sustainable societies.”
    • declares the opening and closing of each General Assembly meeting.
    • presides over these meetings by directing the discussion and keeping order.
    • cannot vote; another representative from his country casts the vote.
  • “important questions” are decided by two-thirds majority vote. These include:
    • the election of non-permanent Security Council members and Economic and Social Council members.
    • the budget.
    • the suspension of membership privileges or expulsion of a member state.
    • admission of new members.
    • recommendations for maintaining peace and security in situations that are not currently being discussed by the Security Council.[56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
  • six main committees deal with specific issues and report back to the General Assembly. Each nation may send a representative to each committee, which are the:
    • Disarmament and International Security Committee.
    • Economic and Financial Committee.
    • Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Issues Committee.
    • Special Political and Decolonization Committee.
    • Administrative and Budgetary Committee.
    • Legal Committee.[62]

* The Security Council is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, and it:

  • has 15 total members. These include:
    • five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
    • 10 other members that are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.
    • a president, which rotates monthly in alphabetical order of the member countries’ names.[63] [64] [65] [66] [67]
  • has subsidiary bodies such as the:
    • Counter-Terrorism Committee, formed after September 11, 2001 to help countries prevent terrorist attacks.[68]
    • 1540 Committee, formed in 2004 to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly into terrorists’ hands.[69] [70]
  • allows non-member countries to participate in discussions if it determines that those countries’ interests are involved.[71]
  • makes decisions on international peace and security that:
    • require nine affirmative votes, including all five of the permanent members. This means that any permanent member of the council has veto power over its decisions.
    • may include sanctions, but there are no measures in place to punish countries that allow trade with a sanctioned party.
    • may include the use of force, but member countries are not required to provide troops.[72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]
  • can create missions that deploy military personnel provided by member countries. These soldiers are first members of their own national armies and second under the United Nations’ command. The United Nations does not keep a standing army.[78] [79] [80]

* The International Court of Justice is the judicial body of the United Nations,[81] and it:

  • has 15 judges. These judges are elected:
    • by a majority vote in both the General Assembly and the Security Council.
    • to nine-year terms and may serve multiple terms.
    • to terms that are staggered so that one third of the court is elected every three years.[82]
  • is located in The Hague in the Netherlands and is the only major United Nations body based outside of New York.[83]
  • has a stated purpose to settle legal disputes according to international law and to provide legal opinions, when requested, to United Nations agencies.[84]
  • can only hear cases between countries that have accepted its jurisdiction through:
    • a special agreement accepting jurisdiction over a specific case.
    • treaty provisions.
    • a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory in cases where the other country has made the same declaration.[85] [86] [87]

* The Secretariat is the administrative arm of the United Nations, and it:

  • is headed by the Secretary-General, the chief administrative officer of the UN. The Secretary-General:
    • is recommended by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly to a five year term.[88]
    • may serve multiple terms. So far, none has held office for more than two terms.[89]
    • issues an annual report summarizing the United Nations’ activities and future priorities.[90]
  • includes tens of thousands of international staff divided into specialized departments.[91] [92] Some of these departments include the:
    • Office of Internal Oversight Services, which conducts internal audits and investigations.[93]
    • Department of Political Affairs, which monitors political changes across the world to identify and prevent potential crises.[94]
    • Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which implements peacekeeping operations mandated by the Security Council.[95]
    • Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which coordinates aid and relief efforts after emergencies.[96]
    • Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which promotes social, economic, and environmental sustainable development.[97]
    • Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which helps countries implement international human rights standards.[98]

* The Economic and Social Council oversees global progress on economic, social, and environmental sustainable development. It:

  • has 54 members who:
    • are elected by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly.
    • serve overlapping three-year terms and may be re-elected.
    • maintain a fixed geographical representation of 14 members from Africa, 11 from Asia, 10 from Latin America or the Caribbean, six from Eastern Europe, and 13 from Western Europe or other states.
  • makes decisions based on a majority vote.
  • picks an annual theme for its focus.
  • conducts the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, which is an annual follow-up and review of the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
  • can make recommendations on economic and social issues and consult with nongovernmental organizations, but its decisions are not binding.[99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]

* The Trusteeship Council:

  • was created to monitor the 11 territories that were under the United Nations’ supervision in 1945. Territories fell under the UN’s trusteeship system if they were:
    • under the League of Nations’ supervision.
    • removed from a defeated country after World War II.
    • voluntarily placed under the United Nations’ supervision by their administering country.
  • suspended operation in 1994, since all 11 territories had achieved self-government or independence. [106] [107] [108]

Costs

* In 2016, the United Nations’ reported expenditures totaled $48.7 billion ($48,764,755,110). Its funds come from both required and voluntary contributions of member countries.[109] [110]

* The Committee on Contributions—an 18-member committee appointed by the General Assembly—evaluates each country’s ability to contribute to the United Nations’ expenses. It recommends to the General Assembly what portion each member country should be required to pay towards:

* The regular budget is prepared by the Secretary-General and approved by the General Assembly with a two-thirds majority vote. It covers administrative costs such as the General Assembly, Security Council, Secretariat, International Court of Justice, and Human Rights Council.[115] [116] [117]

* The regular budget covers two-year periods. For 2018–2019 it is about $5.4 billion, or $2.7 billion per year.[118] [119] [120]

* In 2018, countries’ assessments rates ranged from 0.0001% to 22% of the regular budget, with a median of 0.01% and an average of 0.51%. This equals contributions ranging from $26,881 to $591 million, with a median of $376,338 and an average of $14 million. Together, the United States, Japan, China, Germany, and France are assessed more than the other 188 countries combined:[121]

United Nations Regular Budget Assessments

[122]

* The approved budget for peacekeeping operations for July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 is $6.7 billion. The budget is prepared by the Secretary-General and approved by the General Assembly.[123]

* The five permanent members of the Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, and Russia—are required to pay a larger share of the peacekeeping budget because they have a “special responsibility” to maintain international peace and security. Their combined portion of the 2018 peacekeeping budget is 54%, and the U.S. portion alone is 28%.[124] [125]

* There are 15 agencies in the UN system that require separate direct payments from their members, and each has its own scale of assessments. These agencies are legally independent organizations with their own memberships and rules.[126]


United States

* The United States is the largest financial contributor to the United Nations.[127] According to UN data, the United States contributed a total of $9.7 billion ($9,718,025,938) to the United Nations in 2016.[128] This amounted to:

  • $30 for every person living in the U.S.[129]
  • 21% of U.S. federal outlays for international affairs.[130]
  • 20% of total revenues for the United Nations system.[131]

* The U.S. Congress struggles to accurately estimate its total funding to the UN system. This is primarily because of differences in fiscal year schedules and the decentralized structure of both the UN system and U.S. payments.[132]

* About 62% of United States’ payments to the UN in 2016 were voluntary contributions.[133] The largest portion of funding goes to humanitarian-related activities. These are funded by congress but generally allocated by the president.[134]

* The U.S. Congress uses its spending power to influence policy or initiate reform at the United Nations.[135] In 1993, it began withholding a portion of payments in order to persuade the UN to create an independent oversight office. The following year, the General Assembly established the Office of Internal Oversight Services.[136] [137]

* Since the 1980s, the United States has withheld a portion of its regular budget payments that would otherwise go to programs related to Palestinians. Through laws passed in the 1990s, it also refuses to fund UN agencies that admit the Palestine Liberation Organization as a member.[138]

* In 2011, the U.S. cut off funding to the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization because Palestine was admitted as a member. Democratic President Barack Obama opposed Palestinian membership but also requested about $80 million for the agency in his 2013 fiscal year budget proposal. The U.S. Congress denied the request, and in 2013 the United States lost its vote at the agency’s General Conference because of its refusal to pay this assessment.[139] [140] [141]

* Under the executive authority of Republican President Donald Trump, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, effective December 31, 2018. When announcing its withdrawal, the U.S. State Department mentioned the U.S.’s unpaid assessments and concerns over the agency’s “anti-Israel bias.”[142] [143]

* The U.S. Congress has also limited payments to other UN agencies to object to their assessment levels. In 1995, it capped the U.S. portion of the peacekeeping budget at 25% instead of its assessed level of over 30%.[144] [145]

* A member country that owes two years’ worth of payments to the regular and peacekeeping budgets automatically loses its vote in the General Assembly. The General Assembly may allow a country to keep its vote if it determines that the failure to pay was “due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.”[146] [147] [148] [149]

* The General Assembly made an exception to this rule in 1965. The Soviet Union and France were eligible to lose their General Assembly votes because of their refusal to fund peacekeeping operations in the Middle East and Congo. Instead, the General Assembly waived the past-due payments owed for those operations.[150] Arthur Goldberg, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, announced that:

if any Member State could make an exception to the principle of collective financial responsibility with respect to certain United Nations activities, the United States reserves the same option … if, in its view, there were strong and compelling reasons to do so.[151]

* In 1999, the U.S. General Accounting Office projected that the U.S.’s cumulative withholdings from the UN—$1.4 billion by the end of that year—would make it eligible to lose its General Assembly vote in January 2000.[152]

* In 1999, Republican Senator Jesse Helms and Democratic Senator Joe Biden negotiated an agreement to pay a substantial amount of U.S. withholdings. The agreement required the UN to reduce the United States’ portion of the regular and peacekeeping budgets. The following year, the UN General Assembly reduced the U.S. portion of the regular budget from 25% to 22% and the portion of the peacekeeping budget from 30% to 28%.[153] [154]

* In 2017 and 2018, the U.S. Congress applied a 25% cap on its payment to the peacekeeping budget, as required by the 1995 law.[155] In September of 2017, the U.S. State Department estimated that the U.S.’s cumulative withholdings from the UN were about $883 million.[156]

* As of 2018, the UN holds the U.S. responsible for paying 22% of the regular budget ($591 million) and 28% of the peacekeeping budget ($1.9 billion for July 1, 2018–June 30, 2019).[157] [158]

Actions and Effectiveness

International Peace & Security

* According to the United Nations, its “central mission” is “the maintenance of international peace and security.” The UN Security Council has the primary responsibility for carrying out that mission.[159] [160] [161]

* Security Council decisions that are not related to procedure require nine affirmative votes, including all five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This means that any of the five permanent members can veto decisions regarding international peace and security.[162]

* A Security Council member is required to abstain from a vote if it is party to a dispute, and the decision concerns the peaceful settlement of that dispute. In practice, this rule is not applied consistently and was last exercised in 1960.[163] [164] [165]

* When the Security Council identifies a threat to the peace, it usually first recommends a non-forceful solution between the parties in conflict. It may impose economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties, or travel bans. The UN Charter requires all members to enforce sanctions, but there are no measures in place to punish countries that do not comply.[166] [167] [168] [169] [170]

* The Targeted Sanctions Consortium, based at the Graduate Institute of Geneva and the Watson Institute at Brown University,[171] is a group of about 50 scholars and policy practitioners who conduct studies on UN targeted sanctions. In a 2013 study of 22 UN sanctions programs, the consortium found evidence of sanctioned parties using “evasion or coping strategies” in 90% of cases. These strategies include but are not limited to:

  • using black market contractors.
  • diverting trade through other countries or front companies.
  • stockpiling supplies prior to the sanction taking effect.[172] [173]

* The Targeted Sanctions Consortium measured the effectiveness of UN targeted sanctions in fulfilling three general purposes. Sanctions:

  1. aimed at coercing a target to meet specific demands were effective 10% of the time and had mixed effectiveness 27% of the time.
  2. aimed at constraining a target’s activities were effective 28% of the time and had mixed effectiveness 22% of the time.
  3. meant to send a message that the target’s behavior is unacceptable were effective 27% of the time and had mixed effectiveness 44% of the time.[174]

* The United Nations is not authorized by its charter to interfere in countries’ domestic affairs unless the Security Council finds a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” that disrupts international peace and security.[175] The Security Council has used this authority to intervene in human rights situations, even in cases of civil war. For example, it:

  • began an arms embargo on the Sudanese militia in 2004 for human rights violations and on the Sudanese government in 2005 for failing to “apprehend” and “bring to justice” the perpetrators.[176] [177] [178]
  • imposed sanctions on Libya in 2011 then authorized member countries to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians because of “gross and systematic” human rights violations.[179] [180] [181]

* The Security Council alone has the right and responsibility to identify threats to the peace and to decide what actions will maintain or restore international peace and security. If it decides that peaceful measures are inadequate, it may take action “by air, sea, or land forces,” regardless of whether the conflict is essentially a domestic situation.[182]

* The intent of the UN Charter was for member countries to keep armed forces on call to carry out Security Council decisions to use force. The amount and types of troops each country would contribute was to be defined by “a special agreement or agreements” between member countries and the Security Council.[183] In reality, none of the member countries finalized an agreement, so the Security Council does not have armed forces under its control.[184]

* Since the Security Council cannot direct its own military strikes, when it decides armed action is necessary it authorizes member countries to use force on its behalf.[185] [186]

* The Security Council may also direct a ceasefire, send military observers, or set up a peacekeeping mission.[187] The UN Charter does not explicitly provide for peacekeeping operations. These operations are launched with the consent of the involved parties.[188] [189] [190]

* When it decides that a peacekeeping operation is appropriate, the Security Council passes a resolution setting the mission’s goal and size.[191] These resolutions require nine out of the 15 Council members to agree, including all five of the permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This means that any of the five permanent members can block a peacekeeping operation’s creation or goals.[192] [193]

* The military and police deployed during peacekeeping operations are provided voluntarily by member countries. They are first members of their own national armies and second under the United Nations’ command.[194] [195]

* From 1948 to 1988, the UN launched 13 peacekeeping operations. These operations generally involved unarmed military observers and lightly armed troops concerned with maintaining ceasefires and stabilizing situations on the ground. Tensions between Cold War rivals often prevented the Security Council from creating more or larger mandates.[196] [197] [198] [199]

* The first two peacekeeping operations are still in operation:

  1. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, headquartered in Jerusalem, was set up in May of 1948 to help bring stability in the Middle East. Military observers remain to monitor ceasefires and prevent isolated incidents from escalating.[200]
  1. The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan was set up in January of 1949 to supervise a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.[201]

* After the end of the Cold War in 1989, the number of peacekeeping operations increased. From 1989 to 1994, the Security Council started 20 new operations.[202] In the 1990s, the Security Council expanded the mandates for peacekeeping operations to occasionally include:

  • monitoring or running local elections.
  • protecting “safe areas.”
  • guarding weapons.
  • ensuring safe delivery of humanitarian relief supplies.
  • helping reinstate government functions.
  • monitoring the protection of human rights.[203] [204]

* In 1994, approximately 800,000 civilians in Rwanda were killed during a genocide planned by the army and militia groups.[205] [206] UN peacekeepers were present to monitor a cease-fire agreement but were not allowed to use force. A 1999 report from an independent commission to the Security Council called it “a failure by the United Nations system as a whole.” The commission found that the UN:

  • never responded to peacekeeping troops’ request to use force in defense of civilians.
  • knew about weapons distribution prior to the genocide but did not let peacekeepers take action.
  • was warned that the genocide was being planned and did not react accordingly.
  • Security Council’s membership included Rwanda, which had a “damaging effect” on the body’s discussions.[207]

* During the Bosnian conflict of 1992–95, the Security Council tasked the UN Protection Force with facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid and protecting UN-declared “safe areas” with the use of force. In July of 1995, over 7,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed by Bosnian Serbs within the safe area of Srebrenica. A Dutch court held the Netherlands partly liable for some of these deaths, because its peacekeepers failed to protect civilians inside the safe area.[208] [209] [210] [211]

* In 2000, then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan convened the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations to review the UN’s peacekeeping system and make recommendations for improvement.[212] The panel’s Brahimi Report stated that over the previous decade, the United Nations “repeatedly failed” to meet its goal of protecting future generations “from the scourge of war.”[213] [214]

* The Brahimi Report outlined several reasons for this “repeated” failure, including:

  • difficulty getting member countries to contribute enough military personnel.
  • under-supplied or untrained troops.
  • unclear directions from the Security Council on a mission’s mandate.[215]

* In March of 2018—18 years after the Brahimi Report—UN Secretary-General António Guterres announced the Action for Peacekeeping Initiative in order to implement reforms in peacekeeping. He outlined three areas for action, which are:

  1. greater support for the resources needed to perform missions.
  2. better training and performance reviews.
  3. clearer and more focused mandates to create realistic expectations.[216] [217] [218]

* As of September 2018, there are 14 active peacekeeping operations being led by the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. These operations involve about 103,000 personnel from 124 different countries, including about 75,000 troops.[219]

* In 2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office produced a case study on the costs of the UN peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic. It found that if the United States conducted the same operation, the total cost would more than double from about $2.4 billion to about $5.7 billion. The report noted that because the results are based on one case study, they cannot be generalized to all UN peacekeeping operations.[220]

* Since the 1990s, the UN has been aware of peacekeeping personnel committing sexual exploitation and abuse during their missions.[221] Some examples include the following:

  • In 1993, UN peacekeepers in Cambodia reportedly used prostitutes and sexually abused girls. The head of the mission’s response was that “boys will be boys.”
  • In 1995, evidence of sex trafficking emerged in connection with brothels frequented by UN personnel in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • In 2001, the Office of Internal Oversight Services documented cases of peacekeepers in Sierra Leone raping boys and other abuses by civilian staff.
  • In 2007, the UN sent home over 100 Sri Lankan peacekeepers from the mission in Haiti because of allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation linked to a child sex ring.
  • In 2014, a Human Rights Officer and UN Children’s Fund staff received allegations that French peacekeepers sexually abused young children in exchange for money or food.[222] [223] [224] [225]

* Some of the risk factors for sexual exploitation and abuse during peacekeeping missions are:

  • missions taking place in areas of extreme poverty, where women and girls may resort to trading sex for money or food.[226]
  • host countries normalizing gender-based violence as part of post-conflict culture.[227]
  • peacekeepers’ cultural backgrounds, which may devalue women or the host country’s race.[228]

* In 2003, the Secretary-General released a bulletin establishing a “zero tolerance” policy for sexual exploitation and abuse by UN staff and peacekeepers.[229] [230]

* Each country is responsible for enforcing laws and UN rules and punishing its own peacekeeping troops for violations. The UN does not have the authority to bring criminal charges or punish peacekeepers, and the host country may only prosecute soldiers that are handed over by their home country. The host country is also barred from conducting investigations.[231] [232]

* In 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan assigned Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein—Permanent UN Representative from Jordan and later UN High Commissioner for Human Rights—as his advisor on sexual abuse and exploitation. Zeid prepared a report for the General Assembly reviewing the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers. He recommended that the UN:

  • set and implement a uniform standard of conduct.
  • establish a permanent body to investigate allegations of sexual abuse.
  • require troop-contributing countries to refer “well founded” allegations to authorities to consider prosecution.[233] [234]

* According to a 2013 UN report prepared by a team of experts:

Sexual Exploitation and Abuse has been judged the most significant risk to UN peacekeeping missions, above and beyond other key risks including protection of civilians. … The facts call for urgent action on the part of the United Nations and its member states in order to fulfill the mandate of the UN.[235]

* In 2015, an independent panel noted that—despite the UN receiving a variety of analyses and recommendations on the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse—“substantively little has changed on the ground.” It further stated that:

both victims and perpetrators have little reason to believe that crimes will be punished in any meaningful way, or that effective measures will be put in place to prevent future abuses.[236]

Human Rights

* A primary purpose of the United Nations is to promote human rights.[237] It has created various documents that set human rights standards and the commitment of members that ratify them.[238]

* The UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948, which is now Human Rights Day.[239] The UN committee that drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of U.S. Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt.[240]

* The declaration is a nonbinding document that became the foundation for international human rights law. Some countries have incorporated it into their constitutions, and the Human Rights Council uses it as a basis for reviewing countries’ human rights situations.[241] [242] [243]

* The declaration lists everyone’s civil and political rights,[244] including but not limited to:

  • freedom from slavery, torture, and arbitrary arrest.[245]
  • equality before the law, fair and public hearings, and being presumed innocent until proven guilty.[246]
  • a nationality, freedom of movement, asylum, and property ownership.[247]
  • marriage and protection of family.[248]
  • freedom of thought, conscience, religion, peaceful assembly, opinion, and expression, including the right to exchange information through any media.[249]
  • a government whose authority is based on the will of the people through elections.[250]

* According to the declaration, everyone’s economic, social, and cultural rights include but are not limited to: [251]

  • work, trade unions, fair work conditions, and a fair salary supplemented—if necessary—by other means of social protection.[252]
  • an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, necessary social services, and security when a person can’t work for reasons beyond his control.[253]
  • free elementary education, and for parents to choose their children’s kind of education.[254]
  • participation in a community’s cultural life.[255]
  • intellectual property protection of one’s scientific, literary, or artistic work.[256]

* The declaration also states that:

  • limitations on rights can only be made by law in order to recognize the rights of others.
  • countries’ legal systems should conform with the declaration—not be “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”[257] [258]

* The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights passed in the UN General Assembly in 1966 entered into legal force in 1976.[259] [260] In 1992, the United States Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification with several “reservations, understandings, declarations and proviso,” including a provision that prevents the treaty from usurping the Constitution of the United States.[261] [262]

* The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights was passed by the General Assembly in 1966 and entered into legal force in 1976. Its participating countries—which do not include the United States—agree to “take steps” towards “progressively” implementing the rights in the Covenant.[263] [264] [265] [266]

* Together, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights make up the International Bill of Human Rights.[267]

* Besides the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there are four other UN human rights treaties to which the United States is a party:

  1. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was ratified in 1994.
  2. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment was ratified in 1994.
  3. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict was ratified in 2002.
  4. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography was ratified in 2002.[268]

* The U.S. Senate provided declarations with each ratification preventing these treaties from usurping the Constitution or laws of the United States.[269]

* The UN Charter did not create a body specifically to enforce human rights.[270] [271] There are multiple agencies that have promoted and monitored human rights, such as:

  • the Commission on Human Rights, which was a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council that helped draft human rights documents and investigated allegations of human rights violations. It was disbanded in 2006 due to a “credibility deficit,” because its members used their status to protect themselves from criticism rather than to promote human rights.[272] [273] [274] [275] [276]
  • the Human Rights Council, which was created in 2006 to replace the Commission on Human Rights. It encourages the development of human rights law through nonbinding resolutions and conducts the Universal Periodic Review—an evaluation of all UN members’ human rights records with optional recommendations for improvement.[277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283]
  • the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is part of the Secretariat. It helps governments implement international human rights standards, provides administrative support to other human rights agencies, and can investigate and report on human rights situations.[284] [285] [286]
  • human rights treaty bodies, which are 10 committees of independent experts that monitor the implementation of international human rights treaties.[287]
  • the Social, Humanitarian & Cultural Issues Committee of the General Assembly, which reviews reports from the Human Rights Council and works with experts to recommend nonbinding resolutions to the General Assembly.[288] [289]

* The Human Rights Council has 47 members elected by a majority vote in the General Assembly. Members can serve two consecutive terms. During the election process, the General Assembly is supposed to consider a country’s “contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights.”[290]

* Seats on the Human Rights Council are divided between five regional groups: Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Western Europe and others.[291] Elections can have a candidate running unopposed to represent a region. The election held in October of 2018 had 18 candidates running for 18 seats. Noncompetitive elections occasionally lead to the membership of countries that have committed human rights violations.[292] [293] [294] [295]

* As of October of 2018, the Human Rights Council includes 14 countries that are ranked as “not free” by Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization. This is the largest proportion of “not free” members in the Council’s 12 year history.[296] [297] [298]

* A joint report by UN Watch, the Human Rights Foundation, and the Raoul Wallenburg Centre for Human Rights evaluated the candidates for the 2018 Human Rights Council election. It deemed six candidates—all of whom were elected—as unqualified:[299] [300]

  1. Bahrain is an authoritarian regime according to The Economist Democracy Index and commits serious human rights violations such as arbitrary killings, torture, arbitrary arrest, holding political prisoners, and restrictions on freedoms of the press, association, and movement.[301]
  1. Bangladesh has failed to support UN resolutions that speak out for human rights victims and commits serious human rights violations such as torture, arbitrary detention, and violence and discrimination based on gender, religion, and sexual orientation.[302]
  1. Cameroon is considered an authoritarian regime by The Economist Democracy Index and commits serious human rights violations such as arbitrary and unlawful killings, torture, and corruption.[303]
  1. Eritrea has not held national elections since it became independent in 1993, commits serious human rights violations, and is the subject of an annual Human Rights Council resolution condemning its systemic human rights violations.[304]
  1. The Philippines commits serious human rights violations such as unlawful killings, torture, disregard of due process, and holding political prisoners.[305]
  1. Somalia has never had direct elections and commits serious human rights violations such as the killing of civilians, torture, using child soldiers, and disrupting and seizing humanitarian aid.[306]

* The General Assembly may suspend a member of the Human Rights Council with a two-thirds majority vote. Libya was suspended in 2011 while under the leadership of Muammar Al-Qadhafi.[307] [308]

* At each session of the Human Rights Council, there are 10 permanent agenda items. The seventh agenda item—the human rights impact of Israeli occupation in Palestine—is the only permanent topic that focuses on a specific country. The United States Department of State has opposed the existence of this permanent topic as evidence of bias against Israel.[309] [310]

* In June of 2018, the United States withdrew from the Human Rights Council. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley cited the Council’s bias against Israel, the membership of countries with poor human rights records, and the Council’s refusal to address ongoing human rights abuses.[311] [312] [313]

* At the end of the 2005 World Summit, the General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution that each country has the “responsibility to protect” its people against genocide and other crimes against humanity. This policy also calls on the international community to intervene if a country fails to meet this responsibility.[314]

* Although the United Nations is not authorized by its charter to interfere in countries’ domestic affairs, it is allowed to do so if the Security Council finds a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”[315] The Security Council has used this authority to intervene in human rights situations. For example, it:

  • implemented a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa in 1977 because of its practices of racial segregation and violence against its people.[316]
  • began an arms embargo on the Sudanese militia in 2004 for human rights violations and on the Sudanese government in 2005 for failing to “apprehend” and “bring to justice” the perpetrators.[317] [318]
  • imposed sanctions on Libya in 2011 then authorized member countries to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians because of “gross and systematic” human rights violations.[319] [320]

Humanitarian Aid

* One of the United Nations’ stated purposes is to “achieve international cooperation” in solving international humanitarian problems.[321]

* Among the UN entities that provide specialized humanitarian assistance are the:

  • UN Refugee Agency, which provides aid such as clean water, sanitation, healthcare, and shelter to people displaced from their home country.[322]
  • UN Children’s Fund, which advocates for the protection of children and seeks to expand children’s access to aid.[323] [324]
  • World Food Program, which provides food to victims of disasters and refugee programs.[325] [326]
  • United Nations Development Program, which helps restore government functions, manage debris, and restore infrastructure after natural disasters and conflicts.[327] [328]
  • World Health Organization, which coordinates responses to health emergencies like disease outbreaks, conflicts, and natural disasters.[329] [330]

* The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) coordinates humanitarian aid plans. It does not directly distribute aid.[331] [332] Instead, it works through the Inter-Agency Standing Committee—a forum for humanitarian agencies both inside and outside the United Nations—to assess needs, divide responsibilities, and address gaps in response.[333] [334] [335]

* Humanitarian crises are typically caused by armed conflict or natural disasters and can be worsened by poor economic conditions.[336] [337] [338]

* At the end of 2017, OCHA forecasted 21 humanitarian response plans plus a Syria Regional Refugee Plan for 2018.[339] It spent about $14 billion for these programs to provide aid to about 91 million people.[340]

* According to OCHA, “humanitarian crises affect more people, for longer” despite funding reaching record highs in 2017 and 2018.[341] [342] This is because of a “failure to address the root causes.”  Specifically:

  • an overwhelming majority of the 2018 UN humanitarian crises responses involved conflict,[343] which will continue to be the “main driver of humanitarian needs” in 2019. OCHA states that better conflict resolution is the only way to substantially reduce future humanitarian needs.
  • lack of economic development makes poorer areas dependent on aid and vulnerable to the impact of conflict and natural disasters. As of 2018, the average UN humanitarian response lasts more than nine years, compared to about five years as of 2014.[344] [345] [346] [347]

* In order to prioritize resources, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee uses a classification system for humanitarian emergencies. The most dire classification—a system-wide Level 3 emergency—requires large-scale efforts from a wide range of humanitarian aid providers, because resources are not already in place to coordinate and deliver assistance.[348] [349] [350] In 2017, there were four system-wide Level 3 emergencies:[351]

  1. Syria, which has been engaged in a civil war since 2011, had approximately 13.1 million people in need of humanitarian aid. An additional 5.5 million Syrians were registered as refugees in other countries.[352] [353]
  2. Iraq’s humanitarian crisis involved about 6 million displaced people and significant infrastructure damage caused by conflict between the government and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.[354] [355]
  3. Yemen had about 22.2 million people in need of humanitarian or protection assistance—including food, health care, and sanitation—because of conflict and economic decline.[356] [357] [358]
  4. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, with about 13.1 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and protection in 2017, has a complex crisis that involves internal conflict, the hosting of refugees, widespread human rights abuses, and outbreaks of communicable diseases.[359] [360]

* A corporate emergency may be equally as severe as a system-wide emergency but does not involve as many aid providers—it exceeds the capacity of a specific agency’s regional resources. If the Emergency Relief Coordinator declares an OCHA corporate emergency, the response requires the global support of all OCHA offices because of a sudden or quickly worsening crisis. In 2017, there were four OCHA corporate emergencies:[361] [362] [363]

  1. Ethiopia’s need for food assistance spiked from 5.6 million to 8.5 million people because of persistent drought conditions and people being driven from their homes by armed conflict and the government’s land redistribution practices.[364] [365] [366] [367]
  2. Somalia’s humanitarian aid rapidly increased because of fear that severe drought was leading to a famine, widespread violence, and disruption of aid delivery by the government and militia.[368] [369] [370] [371] [372]
  3. Nigeria is engaged in a conflict that led to increased humanitarian response in order to avoid famine and contain a cholera outbreak.[373] [374]
  4. Bangladesh received an influx of refugees from a conflict in Myanmar, creating the need for increased humanitarian response coordination.[375]

* The Emergency Relief Coordinator—who heads OCHA and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee—helps aid organizations gain access to people who need help. Barriers can include interference from governments or other parties, violent conflict, lack of security for humanitarian workers or goods, and diversion of aid to other parties. [376] [377] [378] [379]

* Delivering humanitarian aid to its intended recipients can be further hampered because of:

  • local governments charging taxes to humanitarian agencies operating in their borders.
  • local groups extorting money from humanitarian agencies with illegal checkpoints.
  • looting.
  • government corruption.
  • “gatekeepers” at refugee camps who claim to distribute aid but divert it elsewhere.
  • fraud committed by staff, partners, and contractors.
  • a lack of transparency that would allow the humanitarian community to develop plans for coping with these obstructions.[380] [381]

* When it makes humanitarian response plans, OCHA considers these access problems. Hence, it does not help all people in need and reduced the portion of people it will try to assist in the Congo in 2019.[382]

* The UN Security Council can play a role in opening access for humanitarian aid. For example, in 2014 it authorized aid agencies to enter Syria from neighboring countries.[383] The Syrian government has refused some UN requests to deliver aid, despite Security Council resolutions demanding their cooperation.[384] [385] [386]

* Peacekeeping operations sometimes have humanitarian goals, such as the following:

  • The Security Council tasked United Nations Operation in Somalia II in 1993 with creating a safe environment for humanitarian relief operations and in 1994 with providing humanitarian relief.[387] [388]
  • Peacekeepers currently in the Democratic Republic of Congo are directed to protect humanitarian personnel.[389] [390]
  • Peacekeepers currently in Darfur are tasked with ensuring the security and “freedom of movement” of humanitarian workers.[391] [392]

* In October 2010, cholera appeared in Haiti for the first time in almost 100 years.[393] According to OCHA, over 800,000 cases and about 9,700 deaths from cholera occurred in Haiti from October 2010 to March 2018.[394]

* Scientific studies indicate that the cholera outbreak likely started with UN peacekeepers from Nepal.[395] [396] [397] In 2016, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon apologized to the Haitian people for the UN’s role in the outbreak.[398]

* Haiti’s National Cholera Elimination Plan will cost about $2.1 billion. The UN Children’s Fund and peacekeeping mission have provided treatment, sanitation, water, and prevention kits.[399]

* Humanitarian aid efforts can have other effects on their intended beneficiaries. For example:

  • humanitarian aid workers have been widely accused of sexually exploiting local and refugee populations—for instance, by requiring sex in exchange for aid.[400] [401] [402] [403]
  • flooding a market with food aid can drive down local food prices. This can:
    • hurt local producers by reducing profits.
    • dissuade investment in local agriculture.[404]
  • an influx of aid workers—who need local services and have the resources to pay high fees—can drive up local housing and other prices.
  • militia groups often steal and extort money and goods from aid agencies, equipping them with resources to extend armed conflict.[405]

International Law

* One objective of the United Nations is to:

establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.[406]

* International law is the set of rules that countries follow in their conduct with each other and comes from a variety of sources. There is not a central legislative body that creates international law in the same way countries create domestic laws.[407] [408]

* Treaties serve as the primary source for international law. A treaty—also known as a charter, covenant, or convention—is a written agreement that binds participating parties to its terms.[409]

* The United Nations Charter is an international treaty that entered into force in October of 1945. The United States Senate approved it in July of 1945 with a vote of 89 to 2.[410] As a treaty, its members are bound by its provisions, although the charter recognizes the sovereignty of its members. According to the charter, member countries agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the UN Security Council, however there is no consistent method of enforcing these decisions. Resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly, unless dealing with procedural issues, are not legally binding.[411] [412] [413] [414] [415]

* The primary UN agencies related to international law are the:

  • International Law Commission, whose members prepare works on issues that affect relations between countries. The General Assembly may then facilitate an international conference to adopt the work as a legally-binding convention or treaty.[416]
  • International Court of Justice (ICJ), which was created by the Charter of the UN as its “principal judicial organ.”[417] The ICJ settles legal disputes between countries according to international law and provides legal opinions, when requested, to UN agencies.[418]

* The International Law Commission wrote the first draft of the statute that created the International Criminal Court.[419] Although the court—which tries certain individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—is independent of the UN, the Security Council may refer cases to it.[420] [421]

* The ICJ can only hear cases between countries that accept its jurisdiction. Countries may do this:

  • by special agreement for a specific case.
  • in treaties that require disputes to be settled by the ICJ.
  • through a general declaration filed with the UN secretary-general.[422] [423] [424]

* Judgements made by the ICJ are binding and cannot be appealed, while advisory opinions are not binding.[425] [426] [427]

* The ICJ does not have the power to enforce its decisions. If a country does not comply with the court’s ruling, the other country in the case may bring the issue to the UN Security Council. It is uncommon for this to actually occur.[428] [429] [430] [431]

* As of 2018, 73 countries recognize the court’s jurisdiction as compulsory through declarations filed with the UN secretary-general. Of these, the only permanent member of the UN Security Council is the U.K.[432] [433]

* In 1986, the United States withdrew its general consent to the court’s jurisdiction, in accord with the six month’s notice allowed in its declaration.[434] [435] [436]

* The United States has announced its withdrawal from some treaties or optional protocols that recognize the court’s jurisdiction. Each treaty has its own provision for withdrawal that can include written notice and a waiting period. In October of 2018, U.S. national security advisor John Bolton announced that the United States would review all international agreements “that may still expose the United States to the ICJ’s jurisdiction.”[437] [438] [439]

* In addition to treaties, the ICJ considers other sources for international law:

  • International customs are general practices that are accepted as law. Since they are not necessarily written down or signed, customs can be difficult to define. General Assembly resolutions can help establish customs.
  • General principles of law include “good faith”—the concept that all parties intend to comply with the agreements they make.[440] [441] [442]

* Judicial decisions and the scholarly work of experts are used as subsidiary sources for determining the rule of law. They are not the basis for law but they can help define or prove the existence of a custom or general principle of law.[443] [444]

* The UN Security Council can set up temporary judicial bodies to handle criminal cases. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia operated from 1993 to 2017. It sentenced 89 people for war crimes that took place in the Balkans from 1991 to 2001. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda operated from 1995 to 2015. It sentenced 62 people responsible for genocide and other violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda in 1994.[445] [446] [447] [448]

Politicians

Ronald Reagan

* Republican President Ronald Reagan sought UN reform by encouraging the U.S. Congress to withhold some of its payments.[449] [450]

* In 1988, Reagan requested $188 million in payments to the UN from these withheld funds. He acknowledged the UN’s progress on reform and “very constructive” efforts to end the Persian Gulf War and Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.[451]


George H.W. Bush

* From March 1971 to January 1973, George H.W. Bush was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He is the only U.S. president to have served in this role.[452]

* Republican President George H.W. Bush proposed a plan for the United States to pay the UN all of the funds that the U.S. Congress previously withheld.[453] [454]

* In 2005, Bush was UN special envoy for the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster.[455]


Bill Clinton

* In 1999, the United States and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization began Operation Allied Force in Yugoslavia without the consent of the UN Security Council.[456]

* From 2005 to 2007, former Democratic President Bill Clinton served as special envoy for UN humanitarian aid after a tsunami in the Indian Ocean.[457]

* In 2009, Clinton was named as UN special envoy to Haiti. He then oversaw UN aid efforts after a large earthquake hit the country in January 2010.[458]


George W. Bush

* Under Republican President George W. Bush, the United States boycotted the Human Rights Council because of beliefs that the council had anti-Israel bias and that membership included countries with poor human rights records.[459] [460]

* In 2003, the United States sought a UN Security Council resolution authorizing armed force against Iraq, but the resolution did not pass. Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March of 2003 without authority from the UN Security Council.[461]


Barack Obama

* Under Democratic President Barack Obama, the United States joined the Human Rights Council with the stated purpose of “working from within” towards reform.[462] [463]

* In 2011, the U.S. cut off funding to the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization because Palestine was admitted as a member. Obama opposed Palestinian membership but also requested about $80 million for the agency in his 2013 fiscal year budget proposal. The U.S. Congress denied the request, and in 2013 the United States lost its vote at the agency’s General Conference because of its refusal to pay this assessment.[464] [465] [466]

* In August of 2016, Obama approved the Paris Agreement without submitting it to Congress for their advice and consent.[467] [468] This agreement intends to limit global temperature increases by encouraging countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.[469] [470] [471]


Donald Trump

* Under Republican President Donald Trump, the United States withdrew from the Human Rights Council. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley cited the council’s bias against Israel, membership of countries with poor human rights records, and refusal to address ongoing human rights abuses.[472] [473] [474]

* In June of 2017, fulfilling a campaign promise,[475] [476] Trump announced that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.[477]


Ron Paul

* From 1997 to 2009, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act,” every two years. The bill required the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.[478] [479] [480] [481] [482] [483] [484] [485]


Mike Rogers

* In 2015 and 2017, U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) introduced the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act,” which is similar to Rep. Ron Paul’s bill that requires the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.[486] [487]


Alexander Mooney

* In 2017, U.S. Rep. Alexander Mooney (R-WV) introduced legislation that would remove all United States funding from the United Nations if the UN tries to impose taxes.[488]


Edward Royce

* In 2017, U.S. Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA) introduced a resolution objecting to a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the resolution with a vote of 342 to 80.[489] [490]

Footnotes

[1] Entry: “League of Nations.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Last updated 8/3/18. <www.britannica.com>

“The terrible losses of World War I produced, as years went by and peace seemed no nearer, an ever growing public demand that some method be found to prevent the renewal of the suffering and destruction which were now seen to be an inescapable part of modern war.”

[2] Webpage: “The League of Nations, 1920.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed October 18, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

Speaking before the U.S. Congress on January 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson enumerated the last of his Fourteen Points, which called for a “general association of nations … formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” … In calling for the formation of a “general association of nations,” Wilson voiced the wartime opinions of many diplomats and intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic who believed there was a need for a new type of standing international organization dedicated to fostering international cooperation, providing security for its members, and ensuring a lasting peace. With Europe’s population exhausted by four years of total war, and with many in the United States optimistic that a new organization would be able to solve the international disputes that had led to war in 1914, Wilson’s articulation of a League of Nations was wildly popular.

[3] Article: “Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy Gets Complicated.” By Jennifer Schuessler. New York Times, November 29, 2015. <www.nytimes.com>

“The irony here is that Wilson really is the architect of a lot of modern liberalism,” said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton. “The tradition that runs through F.D.R. to L.B.J. and Obama really starts with his administration.” …

“Going to the mat for Wilson should not be hard,” said David Greenberg, a historian at Rutgers University. “If your standards are liberal progressive values in general, Wilson deserves to be celebrated.”

[4] Webpage: “The Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed October 11, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

The Paris Peace Conference convened in January 1919 at Versailles just outside Paris. The conference was called to establish the terms of the peace after World War I. Though nearly thirty nations participated, the representatives of the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and Italy … dominated the proceedings that led to the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles, a treaty that ended World War I.

The Treaty of Versailles articulated the compromises reached at the conference. It included the planned formation of the League of Nations, which would serve both as an international forum and an international collective security arrangement.

[5] Webpage: “The League of Nations, 1920.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed October 18, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

Wilson voiced the wartime opinions of many diplomats and intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic who believed there was a need for a new type of standing international organization dedicated to fostering international cooperation, providing security for its members, and ensuring a lasting peace. …

The idea of the League was grounded in the broad, international revulsion against the unprecedented destruction of the First World War and the contemporary understanding of its origins. This was reflected in all of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which were themselves based on theories of collective security and international organization debated amongst academics, jurists, socialists and utopians before and during the war. …

… Most important for Wilson, the League would guarantee the territorial integrity and political independence of member states, authorize the League to take “any action … to safeguard the peace,” establish procedures for arbitration, and create the mechanisms for economic and military sanctions.

[6] Entry: “League of Nations.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Last updated 8/3/18. <www.britannica.com>

The central, basic idea of the movement was that aggressive war is a crime not only against the immediate victim but against the whole human community. Accordingly it is the right and duty of all states to join in preventing it; if it is certain that they will so act, no aggression is likely to take place. …

… All members undertook to reduce their armaments to the lowest possible level, to suppress the “evil effects” of the private manufacture of arms, and to exchange full information as to their existing armaments and their programs for the future. … Each member undertook (Article 10) to respect the integrity and independence of all the others and to join in preserving them against aggression. Article 11 declared that any war or threat of war was a matter of concern to all members, whether directly affected or not; every member had the right to demand that the question be considered by the Council and, if necessary, to insist on an immediate meeting. By Article 12, all bound themselves to submit all serious disputes to peaceful settlement or to inquiry by the Council and in no case to resort to war until these procedures had had time to lead to a settlement. Even then, if no settlement were reached, they promised to wait a further three months before going to war.

The Covenant purported to cover each of the main proposals which had emerged during the preparatory period—collective security; arbitration and judicial settlement, including the creation of an international court; international cooperation or control in economic and social affairs; disarmament; and open diplomacy.

[7] “The Covenant of the League of Nations (Art. 1 to 26).” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed October 18, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

“The Members of the League agree that if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter either to arbitration or to inquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the report by the Council.”

[8] Webpage: “The Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed October 11, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

The struggle to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant in the U.S. Congress helped define the most important political division over the role of the United States in the world for a generation. A triumphant Wilson returned to the United States in February 1919 to submit the Treaty and Covenant to Congress for its consent and ratification. Unfortunately for the President, while popular support for the League was still strong, opposition within Congress and the press had begun building even before he had left for Paris. Spearheading the challenge was the Senate majority leader and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Henry Cabot Lodge.

Motivated by Republican concerns that the League would commit the United States to an expensive organization that would reduce the United States’ ability to defend its own interests, Lodge led the opposition to joining the League. Where Wilson and the League’s supporters saw merit in an international body that would work for peace and collective security for its members, Lodge and his supporters feared the consequences of involvement in Europe’s tangled politics, now even more complex because of the 1919 peace settlement. They adhered to a vision of the United States returning to its traditional aversion to commitments outside the Western Hemisphere. Wilson and Lodge’s personal dislike of each other poisoned any hopes for a compromise, and in March 1920, the Treaty and Covenant were defeated by a 49–35 Senate vote. Nine months later, Warren Harding was elected President on a platform opposing the League.

The United States never joined the League.

[9] Webpage: “The League of Nations, 1920.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed October 18, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

“Senate opposition cited Article 10 of the Treaty, which dealt with collective security and the League of Nations. This article, opponents argued, ceded the war powers of the U.S. Government to the League’s Council.”

[10] “Treaty of Peace with Germany (Treaty of Versailles).” U.S. Library of Congress. Accessed December 3, 2018 at <www.loc.gov>

The Covenant of the League of Nations

Article 10

The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

[11] Entry: “League of Nations.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Last updated 8/3/18. <www.britannica.com>

[I]n the United States Senate, the leaders of the Republican opposition … had resolved to return to the policy of isolationism. … In November 1919 and again in March 1920 the proposal to ratify with substantial reservations was defeated, and the hope of U.S. membership disappeared, as it proved, forever.

The effect of this event upon the future of the League was, in one sense, decisive, since it ruled out all possibility of collective security as embodied in the Covenant. There was no certainty of a complete economic boycott which, it was confidently expected, would suffice to make even the most aggressive government prefer to settle its disputes by negotiation rather than by armed attack. The other component parts of the system could still function, and did in fact function, though with less effectiveness than if the United States had fully participated therein. The knowledge that the world’s greatest economic power would stand aside from sanctions robbed that part of the Covenant of its main threat for the aggressor and destroyed, in consequence, the confidence that other members could place in it.

[12] Webpage: “The Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

The United States never joined the League. Most historians hold that the League operated much less effectively without U.S. participation than it would have otherwise. However, even while rejecting membership, the Republican Presidents of the period, and their foreign policy architects, agreed with many of its goals. To the extent that Congress allowed, the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations associated the United States with League efforts on several issues.

[13] Entry: “League of Nations.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Last updated 8/3/18. <www.britannica.com>

On October 3, 1935, Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, after rejecting all efforts to dissuade him from the aggression which he was openly planning. By the following summer he had occupied and annexed the whole country, in spite of the economic sanctions enforced against him in execution of the Covenant. From this defeat the League was not destined to recover. … Under British leadership the members, with only three exceptions, agreed to stop the export of arms and raw materials to Italy, to halt the extension of financial credit to Italy, and to cease all imports from Italian sources. By December the effect of these measures was beginning to be seriously felt, and the League members were about to consider imposing an embargo on oil, which, it seemed, would quickly force Mussolini to retreat from Ethiopia.

Mussolini was saved, and all further sanctions were arrested, by the sudden action of the British and French governments. Without consulting their fellow members, they proposed to Italy and Ethiopia a settlement calculated to give the maximum satisfaction to the invader. Though existing sanctions dragged on for several months, they could not prevent the Italian victory.

[14] Paper: “Why Did the League of Nations Fail?” By Jari Eloranta. Cliometrica, January 2011. <www.researchgate.net>

[I]nability of the League to halt Italian … aggression in Abyssinia in 1935–1936 turned out to be its most decisive fiasco. Mussolini, in essence, was able to achieve his illicit conquest despite the protestations of the other European and world powers. Especially the British, who initially were the prominent force behind them, were against the continuation of the sanctions put in place under Article 16 initially, and thus even the sanctions were removed in July 1936. This merely acknowledged the prevailing situation: the Great Powers were not ready to initiate aggression against Italy due to this conflict, and that Mussolini’s victory in Abyssinia had already been sealed months before.

[15] “Treaty of Peace with Germany (Treaty of Versailles).” U.S. Library of Congress. Accessed December 3, 2018 at <www.loc.gov>

The Covenant of the League of Nations

Article 8

The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments.

[16] Paper: “Why Did the League of Nations Fail?” By Jari Eloranta. Cliometrica, January 2011. <www.researchgate.net>

Page 23: “Their views on disarmament differed drastically as well, since for example the British were not willing to commit to extensive collective security arrangements, and the French were not willing, in the absence of such commitments, to disarm. Both were at best skeptical of the chances of the League to provide real security solutions.60

Pages 25–26:

If we think of the disarmament as a game, the near impossibility of the disarmament becomes apparent. When the participants in the game had, broadly speaking, either the goal of obtaining comprehensive collective security guarantees (like France) or, at the other end of the spectrum, were willing to accept disarmament without any agreement at all, the disarmament process certainly faced an uphill battle in order to be a success. At the level of individual countries’ foreign policy, the aims and motivations of the participants differed even more drastically. Furthermore, when repeated negotiations failed to produce results and centralized military leadership—either by the League of Nations or the leader nations—was not forthcoming, an arms race ensued in the 1930s.

[17] Entry: “League of Nations.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Last updated 8/3/18. <www.britannica.com>

The proposal to admit Germany to the League was supported by the former neutrals as well as those among the belligerents who had hoped to achieve a new beginning through reconciliation. The latter group also called for the execution without further delay of the Covenant provisions for disarmament. In France, Poland, and other countries which were neighbours of Germany, these sentiments … were accompanied by deep anxiety lest the military ambitions of the German empire might again become uppermost in the Weimar Republic. … Germany’s neighbours maintained that the security provided by the Covenant was inadequate and that disarmament could only be undertaken after they had received guarantees of prompt and effective support in case a new aggression should take place. …

Many other League members, including those of the British Commonwealth, considered the Covenant not as inadequate but as the utmost limit of what they could safely promise. … Thus it became accepted League doctrine that increased security was a necessary condition for disarmament and that general disarmament was a necessary condition of security. This double thesis was embodied by the Assembly of 1923 in a draft treaty of mutual security, which was promptly rejected by all the principal countries except France.

[18] Book: Arms Races in International Politics: From the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century. By Thomas Mahnken, Joseph Maiolo, and David Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2016. <books.google.com>

Pages 64–65:

[W]hile diplomats in Geneva searched for minimum number of tanks, guns, and planes to insert in the blank tables of the draft disarmament treaties, staff officers in Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Italy planned to organize their national economies to produce munitions on a grand scale.8 … In July 1934, the Geneva disarmament conference adjourned. In 1934–5, Germany began to rearm at full speed…. In March 1935 Germany introduced conscription and Hitler unveiled the Luftwaffe. In 1935–6, Britain and France replied with large rearmament programmes of their own.

…[M]ilitary competition between the great powers between 1936 and 1941 took the form of multiple air, land, and naval races.

Page 78: “If the early 1930s can be characterized—in theoretical terms—as a time of limited ‘arms competition’ the later 1930s—especially 1936–9—can be seen as the stage of ‘arms racing.’

[19] Entry: “League of Nations.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Last updated 8/3/18. <www.britannica.com>

Article 1 defined the League’s original members … and any member could withdraw after giving two years’ notice. …

Throughout these years, laborious efforts were being made at Geneva to reach an effective agreement on disarmament. … The German demand for rearmament became more threatening. The powers who feared a German attack were the more resolved to keep their superiority in weapons.

… In the next months Adolf Hitler became master of Germany, and, in the atmosphere of fear and mistrust created by this event, the [World Disarmament] conference could make no progress. In October 1933 Hitler, finding that the Entente powers had proposed to maintain the restrictions of the peace treaty for another four years, seized the occasion to make a spectacular withdrawal from the conference and from the League. From then on Germany was openly rearming, and all prospects of disarmament disappeared. …

The third period of League history, the period of conflict, opened with the Mukden Incident, a sudden attack made on September 18, 1931, by the Japanese army on the Chinese authorities in Manchuria. This was clearly an act of war in violation of the Covenant. … Many of the smaller members of the League, and League supporters everywhere, called for the strict application of the Covenant and an economic boycott of Japan. The chief Council members were themselves in the grip of economic crisis, however, and the cooperation of the United States and the U.S.S.R. was certain to be refused. Economic sanctions were never seriously envisaged. … Nevertheless, the commission drew up a full report, concluding that Manchuria should be returned to Chinese sovereignty, with various safeguards for the rights and needs of Japan. The conclusions of this report were unanimously adopted by the Assembly (February 1933). Japan rejected them and a month later withdrew from the League.

[20] Paper: “Why Did the League of Nations Fail?” By Jari Eloranta. Cliometrica, January 2011. <www.researchgate.net>

Pages 12–13:

[W]hen did the League’s impotence in the task of maintaining the world peace become apparent to all of its members? In fact, it was the weaknesses that were contained in the League framework and the foreign policy stances of the members that made it impossible for the system to work. The real test of the covenants first came with the surprising Japanese aggression in Manchuria. … The … incident developed into an international conflict as the Japanese made considerable headway against the inferior Chinese forces. This prompted extensive debate in the Council, yet it was not willing to put heavy pressure against Japan. … When a special report condemning Japan was approved on February 24, 1933, the Japanese delegation walked out of the Assembly. Japan announced her formal withdrawal from the League on March 27, 1933.43

[21] Entry: “League of Nations.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Last updated 8/3/18. <www.britannica.com>

While the U.S. Congress was passing a succession of Neutrality Acts, the majority of League members were declaring that they no longer considered themselves bound by the obligations of the Covenant.

… When World War II broke out in September 1939, no appeal of any sort was made to Geneva. …

No further meetings of the Council or Assembly took place during the war. …

The powers and functions entrusted to the League by many treaties were transferred to the [United Nations], which also inherited its material possessions, including the Palais des Nations. On April 19, 1946, the existence of the League was formally ended.

[22] Webpage: “American Isolationism in the 1930s.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

During the 1930s, the combination of the Great Depression and the memory of tragic losses in World War I contributed to pushing American public opinion and policy toward isolationism. Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics. … During World War I, however, President Woodrow Wilson made a case for U.S. intervention in the conflict and a U.S. interest in maintaining a peaceful world order. Nevertheless, the American experience in that war served to bolster the arguments of isolationists; they argued that marginal U.S. interests in that conflict did not justify the number of U.S. casualties.

[23] Webpage: “The Neutrality Acts, 1930s.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

In the 1930s, the United States Government enacted a series of laws designed to prevent the United States from being embroiled in a foreign war by clearly stating the terms of U.S. neutrality. …

By the mid-1930s, events in Europe and Asia indicated that a new world war might soon erupt and the U.S. Congress took action to enforce U.S. neutrality. On August 31, 1935, Congress passed the first Neutrality Act prohibiting the export of “arms, ammunition, and implements of war” from the United States to foreign nations at war and requiring arms manufacturers in the United States to apply for an export license. … On February 29, 1936, Congress renewed the Act until May of 1937 and prohibited Americans from extending any loans to belligerent nations.

… Under [the Neutrality Act of 1937], U.S. citizens were forbidden from traveling on belligerent ships, and American merchant ships were prevented from transporting arms to belligerents even if those arms were produced outside of the United States. The Act gave the President the authority to bar all belligerent ships from U.S. waters, and to extend the export embargo to any additional “articles or materials.” … The Neutrality Act of 1937 did contain one important concession to Roosevelt: belligerent nations were allowed, at the discretion of the President, to acquire any items except arms from the United States, so long as they immediately paid for such items and carried them on non-American ships—the so-called “cash-and-carry” provision. …

After a fierce debate in Congress, in November of 1939, a final Neutrality Act passed. This Act lifted the arms embargo and put all trade with belligerent nations under the terms of “cash-and-carry.” The ban on loans remained in effect, and American ships were barred from transporting goods to belligerent ports.

[24] Entry: “United States.” Encyclopedia Britannica, October 26, 1998. Last updated 10/21/18. <www.britannica.com>

“As the European situation became more tense, the United States continued to hold to its isolationist policy. Congress, with the approval of Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull, enacted a series of neutrality laws that legislated against the factors that supposedly had taken the United States into World War I.”

[25] Entry: “United States.” Encyclopedia Britannica, October 26, 1998. Last updated 10/21/18. <www.britannica.com>

When Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 touched off World War II, Roosevelt called Congress into special session to revise the Neutrality Act to allow belligerents (in reality only Great Britain and France, both on the Allied side) to purchase munitions on a cash-and-carry basis. With the fall of France to Germany in June 1940, Roosevelt, with heavy public support, threw the resources of the United States behind the British. …

The question of how much and what type of additional aid should be given to the Allies became a major issue of the election of 1940…. Public opinion polls … showed that most Americans favoured Britain but still wished to stay out of war. Roosevelt’s opponent, Wendell Willkie, capitalized on this and rose steadily in the polls by attacking the president as a warmonger. An alarmed Roosevelt fought back, going so far as to make what he knew was an empty promise. “Your boys,” he said just before the election, “are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

Upon being returned to office, Roosevelt moved quickly to aid the Allies. His Lend-Lease Act, passed in March 1941 after vehement debate, committed the United States to supply the Allies on credit. …

Although in retrospect U.S. entry into World War II seems inevitable, in 1941 it was still the subject of great debate. Isolationism was a great political force, and many influential individuals were determined that U.S. aid policy stop short of war.

[26] “Atlantic Charter.” Signed August 14, 1941. <avalon.law.yale.edu>

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

[27] Webpage: “1941: The Atlantic Charter.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

14 August 1941: A Joint Declaration

Then, one afternoon, came the news that President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill were in conference “somewhere at sea”—the same seas on which the desperate Battle of the Atlantic was being fought—and on August 14 the two leaders issued a joint declaration destined to be known in history as the Atlantic Charter.

This document was not a treaty between the two powers. Nor was it a final and formal expression of peace aims. It was only an affirmation, as the document declared, “of certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they based their hopes for a better future for the world.”

[28] Entry: “United States.” Encyclopedia Britannica, October 26, 1998. Last updated 10/21/18. <www.britannica.com>

[O]n December 7 Japan directed its first blow against naval and air installations in Hawaii. In a bold surprise attack, Japanese aircraft destroyed or damaged 18 ships of war at Pearl Harbor, including the entire battleship force, and 347 planes. Total U.S. casualties amounted to 2,403 dead and 1,178 wounded.

On December 8, 1941, Congress with only one dissenting vote declared war against Japan. Three days later Germany and Italy declared war against the United States; and Congress, voting unanimously, reciprocated.

[29] Webpage: “1942: Declaration of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 10, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Representatives of 26 countries fighting the Rome–Berlin–Tokyo Axis, decide to affirm their support by Signing the Declaration by United Nations. …

On New Year’s Day 1942, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Maxim Litvinov, of the USSR, and T. V. Soong, of China, signed a short document which later came to be known as the United Nations Declaration. The next day the representatives of twenty-two other nations added their signatures. This important document pledged the signatory governments to the maximum war effort and bound them against making a separate peace.

[30] Webpage: “1944–1945: Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta.” United Nations. Accessed October 11, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Dumbarton Oaks Conference constituted the first important step taken to carry out paragraph 4 of the Moscow Declaration of 1943, which recognized the need for a postwar international organization to succeed the League of Nations. …

For this purpose, representatives of China, Great Britain, the USSR and the United States met for a business-like conference at Dumbarton Oaks, a private mansion in Washington, D.C. The discussions were completed on October 7, 1944, and a proposal for the structure of the world organization was submitted by the four powers to all the United Nations governments and to the peoples of all countries for their study and discussion.

[31] Entry: “Harry S. Truman.” By Alfred Steinberg. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 28, 1999. Last updated 10/12/18. <www.britannica.com>

“Roosevelt died suddenly of a cerebral hemorrhage on April 12, 1945, leaving Truman and the public in shock. … Truman was sworn in as president on the same day as Roosevelt’s death…. He began his presidency with great energy, making final arrangements for the San Francisco meeting to draft a charter for the United Nations….”

[32] Webpage: “1944–1945: Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta.” United Nations. Accessed October 11, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“Soon after, in early April, came the sudden death of President Roosevelt, to whose statesmanship the plans for the San Francisco Conference owed so much. There was fear for a time that the conference might have to be postponed, but President Truman decided to carry out all the arrangements already made, and the conference opened on the appointed date.”

[33] Webpage: “1945: The San Francisco Conference.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

[D]elegates of fifty nations in all, gathered at the City of the Golden Gate, representatives of over eighty per cent of the world’s population, people of every race, religion and continent; all determined to set up an organization which would preserve peace and help build a better world. They had before them the Dumbarton Oaks proposals as the agenda for the conference and, working on this basis, they had to produce a Charter acceptable to all the countries. …

There were 850 delegates, and their advisers and staff together with the conference secretariat brought the total to 3,500. …

… [T]he voting procedure at San Francisco was important. Every part of the Charter had to be and was passed by a two-thirds majority. …

Thus it was that in the Opera House at San Francisco on June 25, the delegates met in full session for the last meeting. Lord Halifax presided and put the final draft of the Charter to the meeting. “This issue upon which we are about to vote,” he said, “is as important as any we shall ever vote in our lifetime.”

In view of the world importance of the occasion, he suggested that it would be appropriate to depart from the customary method of voting by a show of hands. Then, as the issue was put, every delegate rose and remained standing. So did everyone present, the staffs, the press and some 3000 visitors, and the hall resounded to a mighty ovation as the Chairman announced that the Charter had been passed unanimously.

[34] Entry: “United Nations.” By Cecelia M. Lynch, Jacques Fomerand, and Karen Mingst, Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Last updated 9/20/18. <www.britannica.com>

The Dumbarton Oaks proposals, with modifications from the Yalta Conference, formed the basis of negotiations at the United Nations Conference on International Organization (UNCIO), which convened in San Francisco on April 25, 1945, and produced the final Charter of the United Nations. The San Francisco conference was attended by representatives of 50 countries from all geographic areas of the world: 9 from Europe, 21 from the Americas, 7 from the Middle East, 2 from East Asia, and 3 from Africa, as well as 1 each from the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (in addition to the Soviet Union itself) and 5 from British Commonwealth countries. Poland, which was not present at the conference, was permitted to become an original member of the UN.

[35] Entry: “San Francisco Conference.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Revised and updated 3/31/08. <www.britannica.com>

“[T]he leading roles were taken by the foreign ministers of the so-called Big Four nations: U.S. Secretary of State Edward Reilly Stettinius, Jr., Anthony Eden of Great Britain, Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Molotov of the U.S.S.R., and T.V. Soong of China.”

[36] Webpage: “1945: The San Francisco Conference.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The heads of the delegations of the sponsoring countries took turns as chairman of the plenary meetings: Anthony Eden, of Britain, Edward Stettinius, of the United States, T. V. Soong, of China, and Vyacheslav Molotov, of the Soviet Union.”

[37] Article: “United States.” Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: A to Z (3rd edition). By Edmund Jan Osmanczyk. Taylor & Francis, 2003. Pages 2541–2545.

Page 2543: “The United States was one of the four sponsors at the San Francisco Conference on International Organization in 1945 … and was intimately involved in the drafting of the UN Charter. Alger Hiss, a senior official in the US State Department, was secretary-general of the conference, and the secretariat consisted largely of US citizens.”

[38] Webpage: “Alger Hiss.” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed January 7, 2019 at <www.fbi.gov>

The central issue of the trial was espionage. In August 1948, Whittaker Chambers—a senior editor at Time magazine—was called by the House Committee on Un-American Activities to corroborate the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley, a Soviet spy who had defected in 1945 and accused dozens of members of the U.S. government of espionage. One official she named as possibly connected to the Soviets was Alger Hiss. …

A key turn of events came in November 1948, when Chambers produced documents showing both he and Hiss were committing espionage. Then, in early December, Chambers provided the committee with a package of microfilm and other information he had hidden inside a pumpkin on his Maryland farm. The two revelations, which became known as the “Pumpkin Papers,” contained images of State Department materials—including notes in Hiss’ own handwriting.

… Hiss was charged with perjury; he could not be indicted for espionage because the statute of limitations had run out. An extensive FBI investigation helped develop a great deal of evidence verifying Chambers’ statements and revealing Hiss’ cover-ups.

In 1949, the first trial resulted in a hung jury, but in 1950, Hiss was convicted. On January 21, 1950, he was sentenced to five years in prison, ending an important case that helped further confirm the increasing penetration of the U.S. government by the Soviets during the Cold War.

[39] Webpage: “The Alger Hiss Case.” Central Intelligence Agency, May 8, 2007. Last updated 8/3/11. <www.cia.gov>

He appealed his conviction but lost; Hiss served 44 months in Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary and was released in 1954. …

In October 1996, the CIA and NSA released the Venona files, copies of decrypted Soviet intelligence cables from the 1930s and 1940s. The most famous of the cables, dated 30 March 1945, describes ALES, the covername for an American agent who had been working for Soviet military intelligence since 1935, attended the Yalta conference, and then gone on to Moscow where Soviet Foreign Minister Vyshinsky thanked him for his work. Of the Americans at Yalta who then went to Moscow with Secretary of State Stettinius, only Hiss fits this profile.

[40] Book: Venona: Soviet Espionage and the American Response 1939–1957 (Part II: Selected Venona Messages). National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency, 1996.

Page 423:

89. Washington 1822 to Moscow, 30 March 1945. …

As a result of … chat with “ALES”ii the following has been ascertained:

1. ALES has been working with the NEIGHBORS (SOSEDI)iii continuously since 1935.

2. For some years past he has been the leader of a small group of the NEIGHBORS’ probationere … for the most part consisting of his relations.

3. The group and ALES himself work on obtaining military information only. Materials on the “BANK”iv allegedly interest the NEIGHBORS very little and he does not produce them regularly.

4. All the last few years ALES has been working with “POL”v who also meets other members of the group occasionally.

5. Recently ALES and his whole group were awarded Soviet decorations.

6. After the YALTA Conference, when he had gone on to MOSCOW, a Soviet personage in a very responsible position (ALES gave to understand that it was Comrade Vyshinskij) allegedly got in touch with ALES and at the behest of the Military NEIGHBORS passed on to him their gratitude and so on.

ii ALES: Probably Alger Hiss.

iii SOSEDI: Members of another Soviet Intelligence organization….

iv BANK: The U.S. State Department.

[41] Webpage: “The Formation of the United Nations, 1945.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed December 12, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

The Roosevelt administration strove to avoid Woodrow Wilson’s mistakes in selling the League of Nations to the Senate. It sought bipartisan support and in September 1943 the Republican Party endorsed U.S. participation in a postwar international organization, after which both houses of Congress overwhelmingly endorsed participation. Roosevelt also sought to convince the public that an international organization was the best means to prevent future wars. The Senate approved the UN Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2. The United Nations came into existence on October 24, 1945, after 29 nations had ratified the Charter.

[42] Webpage: “History of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 11, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories.

[43] Webpage: “History of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 11, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories.”

[44] Webpage: “Overview.” United Nations. Accessed December 3, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The United Nations is … currently made up of 193 Member States.”

[45] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Chapter III: Organs

Article 7

1 There are established as principal organs of the United Nations: a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice and a Secretariat.

[46] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 9

1 The General Assembly shall consist of all the Members of the United Nations.

[47] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The General Assembly is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the UN. All 193 Member States of the UN are represented in the General Assembly, making it the only UN body with universal representation. Each year, in September, the full UN membership meets in the General Assembly Hall in New York for the annual General Assembly session, and general debate, which many heads of state attend and address. … The General Assembly, each year, elects a GA President to serve a one-year term of office.

[48] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 23

1 The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. …

Article 24

1 In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

[49] Webpage: “Members of the Court.” International Court of Justice. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

“The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. These organs vote simultaneously but separately.”

[50] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 92

The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.

[51] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 97

The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the Organization may require. The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.

[52] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The Secretariat comprises the Secretary-General and tens of thousands of international UN staff members who carry out the day-to-day work of the UN as mandated by the General Assembly and the Organization’s other principal organs.”

[53] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 61

1 The Economic and Social Council shall consist of fifty-four Members of the United Nations elected by the General Assembly.

[54] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The Economic and Social Council is the principal body for coordination, policy review, policy dialogue and recommendations on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as implementation of internationally agreed development goals.”

[55] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Trusteeship Council was established in 1945 by the UN Charter, under Chapter XIII, to provide international supervision for 11 Trust Territories that had been placed under the administration of seven Member States, and ensure that adequate steps were taken to prepare the Territories for self-government and independence. By 1994, all Trust Territories had attained self-government or independence. The Trusteeship Council suspended operation on 1 November 1994.

[56] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The General Assembly is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the UN. All 193 Member States of the UN are represented in the General Assembly, making it the only UN body with universal representation. Each year, in September, the full UN membership meets in the General Assembly Hall in New York for the annual General Assembly session, and general debate, which many heads of state attend and address. … The General Assembly, each year, elects a GA President to serve a one-year term of office.

[57] Webpage: “About the General Assembly.” United Nations. Accessed October 30, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The General Assembly is one of the six main organs of the United Nations, the only one in which all Member States have equal representation: one nation, one vote.”

[58] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 9

1 The General Assembly shall consist of all the Members of the United Nations.

2 Each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly. …

Article 12

1 While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests. …

Article 18

1 Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.

2 Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, the election of non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the elections of members of the Trusteeship Council … the admission of new Members to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of Members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions.

3 Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

[59] Webpage: “Rules of Procedure.” General Assembly of the United Nations. Accessed November 6, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Rule 30

Unless the General Assembly decides otherwise, the General Assembly shall elect a President and twenty-one Vice-Presidents1 at least three months before the opening of the session over which they are to preside. …

Rule 35

In addition to exercising the powers conferred upon him elsewhere by these rules, the President shall declare the opening and closing of each plenary meeting of the session, direct the discussions in plenary meeting, ensure observance of these rules, accord the right to speak, put questions and announce decisions. He shall rule on points of order and, subject to these rules, shall have complete control of the proceedings at any meeting and over the maintenance of order thereat.

The President may, in the course of the discussion of an item, propose to the General Assembly the limitation of the time to be allowed to speakers, the limitation of the number of times each representative may speak, the closure of the list of speakers or the closure of the debate. He may also propose the suspension or the adjournment of the meeting or the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. …

Rule 37

The President, or a Vice-President acting as President, shall not vote but shall designate another member of his delegation to vote in his place.

1 In the annex to resolution 33/138 of 19 December 1978, the General Assembly decided as follows:

1. In the election of the President of the General Assembly, regard shall be had for equitable geographical rotation of this office among the regions mentioned in paragraph 4 below [Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Western Europe].

2. The twenty-one Vice-Presidents of the General Assembly shall be elected according to the following pattern, subject to paragraph 3 below:

(a) Six representatives from African States;

(b) Five representatives from Asian States

(c) One representative from an Eastern European State

(d) Three representatives from Latin American States

(e) Two representatives from Western European or other States

(f) Five representatives from the permanent members of the Security Council

3. The election of the President of the General Assembly will, however, have the effect of reducing by one the number of vice-presidencies allocated to the region from which the President is elected.

[60] Webpage: “Ordinary Sessions.” General Assembly of the United Nations. Accessed November 12, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Since the 60th session in 2005, the President-elect of the General Assembly suggests a theme of global concern for the upcoming general debate, based on informal discussions with Member States, the President of the current session of the General Assembly, and the Secretary-General. Shortly after his/her election, the President-elect sends a letter to all Member States announcing the theme for the upcoming general debate and inviting them to focus their speeches on the proposed theme.

[61] Webpage: “What is the Theme for the General Debate of the 73rd Session of the General Assembly?” United Nations, Dag Hammarskjold Library, October 3, 2018. <ask.un.org>

The theme for the general debate of the 73rd session of the General Assembly is “Making the United Nations relevant to all people: global leadership and shared responsibilities for peaceful, equitable and sustainable societies.”

The theme and additional information about the general debate can found in “Arrangements for the high-level meetings and the general debate of the seventy-third session of the General Assembly: United Nations Headquarters, 24 September–1 October 2018: Information note for delegations” (A/INF/73/4).

[62] Webpage: “Main Committees.” General Assembly of the United Nations. Accessed November 12, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Each Member State may be represented by one person on each Main Committee and on any other committee that may be established upon which all Member States have the right to be represented.

Member States may also assign advisers, technical advisers, experts or persons of similar status to these committees (Rule 100 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly).

Main Committees

• First Committee (Disarmament & International Security)

• Second Committee (Economic & Financial)

• Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian & Cultural)

• Fourth Committee (Special Political & Decolonization)

• Fifth Committee (Administrative & Budgetary)

• Sixth Committee (Legal)

[63] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the UN Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members (5 permanent and 10 non-permanent members).”

[64] Webpage: “Current Members.” United Nations Security Council. Accessed January 21, 2019 at <www.un.org>

The Council is composed of 15 Members:

Five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term year):

• Belgium (2020)

• Côte d’Ivoire (2019)

• Dominican Republic (2020)

• Equatorial Guinea (2019)

• Germany (2020)

• Indonesia (2020)

• Kuwait (2019)

• Peru (2019)

• Poland (2019)

• South Africa (2020)

[65] Webpage: “Security Council Presidency in 2018.” United Nations Security Council. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The presidency of the Council is held by each of the members in turn for one month, following the English alphabetical order of the Member States names.”

[66] Although China has been a member of the United Nations since the organization’s founding, the government that represents it at the UN has changed. After communists seized power of China in 1949, the nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan but continued to represent China at the United Nations.† In 1971, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution establishing the government of the People’s Republic of China as the “only lawful” representative of China to the United Nations and expelling the Chiang Kai-shek representatives.‡

NOTES:

  • † Textbook: Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7th edition). By Peter Malanczuk. Routledge, 1997. Pages 371–372: “The communists seized power in China at the end of 1949, but until 1971 China was represented at the United Nations by the nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek based on Taiwan. … [T]he state of China is and always has been a member of the United Nations….”
  • ‡ “Resolution 2758 (XXVI): Restoration of the Lawful Rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations.” United Nations General Assembly, October 25, 1971. <documents-dds-ny.un.org> “The General Assembly … recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations … decides to restore all its rights … and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek….”

[67] Textbook: Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7th edition). By Peter Malanczuk. Routledge, 1997.

Page 373:

The Security Council consists of fifteen member states.70 Five are permanent members: China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia, which had informed the UN in 1991 that, with the support of the eleven members of the Commonwealth of Independent States arising from the remains of the former Soviet Empire, it would continue the membership of the USSR in all UN organs.71 This step taken by the Russian Federation is remarkable because it did not meet with any protest by a UN member state, although, strictly speaking, one could argue that in this matter an amendment of the Charter was necessary to change the composition of the Security Council.72

[68] Webpage: “The United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee.” United Nations Security Council. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“Guided by Security Council resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005), the CTC [Counter-Terrorism Committee] works to bolster the ability of United Nations Member States to prevent terrorist acts both within their borders and across regions. It was established in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States.”

[69] Webpage: “Frequently Asked Questions on Resolution 1540 (2004).” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Resolution 1540 (2004) is a decision of the Security Council … affirming that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security. …

Resolution 1540 (2004) requires States to refrain from providing any form of support to non-state actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery. States are also required, in accordance with their national procedures, to adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws that prohibit any non-State actor to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, in particular for terrorist purposes, as well as attempts to engage in any of the foregoing activities, participate in them as an accomplice, assist or finance them. …

The main objective of resolution 1540 (2004) is to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery and, to that end, to prohibit any non-State actor from engaging in any proliferation-related activities, in particular for terrorist purposes. …

The 1540 Committee is a subsidiary body of the Security Council, composed of the fifteen current members of the Council. The mandate and scope of activities of the 1540 Committee are derived from resolution 1540 (2004) and subsequent resolutions…. [T]he Committee established, and subsequently maintained, working groups in the following areas:

(i) Monitoring and national implementation;

(ii) Assistance;

(iii) Cooperation with international organisations …

(iv) Transparency and media outreach. …

The 1540 Committee is not a sanctions committee. It does not investigate or prosecute alleged violations of non-proliferation obligations. The 1540 Committee and its group of experts are committed to a cooperative relationship with the international community to facilitate implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) by all States.

[70] Resolution 1540 (2004). United Nations Security Council, April 28, 2004. <archive.ipu.org>

“The Security Council … decides to establish … a Committee of the Security Council, consisting of all members of the Council, which will, calling as appropriate on other expertise, report to the Security Council for its examination, on the implementation of this resolution….”

[71] Webpage: “Current Members.” United Nations Security Council. Accessed January 21, 2019 at <www.un.org>

A State which is a Member of the United Nations but not of the Security Council may participate, without a vote, in its discussions when the Council considers that country’s interests are affected. Both Members and non-members of the United Nations, if they are parties to a dispute being considered by the Council, may be invited to take part, without a vote, in the Council’s discussions; the Council sets the conditions for participation by a non-member State.

[72] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 25

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. …

Article 27

1 Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2 Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3 Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. …

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. …

Article 43

1 All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2 Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3 The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. …

Article 48

1 The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2 Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

[73] Webpage: “Voting System.” United Nations Security Council. Accessed January 21, 2019 at <www.un.org>

The creators of the United Nations Charter conceived that five countries—China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) (which was succeeded in 1990 by the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom and the United States—, because of their key roles in the establishment of the United Nations, would continue to play important roles in the maintenance of international peace and security.

They were granted the special status of Permanent Member States at the Security Council, along with a special voting power known as the “right to veto.” It was agreed by the drafters that if any one of the five permanent members cast a negative vote in the 15-member Security Council, the resolution or decision would not be approved.

All five permanent members have exercised the right of veto at one time or another. If a permanent member does not fully agree with a proposed resolution but does not wish to cast a veto, it may choose to abstain, thus allowing the resolution to be adopted if it obtains the required number of nine favourable votes.

[74] Webpage: “The Security Council.” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

[75] Webpage: “Role of the Security Council.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 5, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

“Under Article 25 of the Charter, all UN members agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the UN make recommendations to Member States, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which Member States are obligated to implement.”

[76] Book: Economic Sanctions: Panacea or Peacebuilding in a Post-Cold War World? Edited by David Cortright and George A. Lopez. Westview Press, 1995. Chapter 2: “The United Nations Experience with Sanctions.” By James C. Ngobi. Pages 17–28.

Page 21:

The Security Council has consistently declared or implied that the responsibility for implementing the sanctions it establishes lies with states…. This position probably springs from the realization that acts violating sanctions will be committed in the jurisdiction of some state, which must then investigate and/or prevent the act and deal with the guilty parties….

Pages 23–24:

[E]xclusive reliance on states for imposing sanctions means that the Security Council committees do not have an independent external mechanism to implement sanctions or to verify that the investigations undertaken by governments are sufficient and conclusive. …

Fourth, there should be measures to punish the offenders who continue to trade with a sanctioned country. … If it is found that the countries in which such companies or individuals reside are not exercising sufficient control or restraint on their national entities, a threat of secondary sanctions against such countries would likely yield amazing results in the field of compliance.

[77] Webpage: “Actions with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Chapter VII).” United Nations Security Council. Accessed December 3, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 43 – Member States’ Obligation to Offer Assistance in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security

The obligation for United Nations members to undertake to make armed forces available to the Security Council, render assistance and accord relief as necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security exists only in accordance with one or more special agreements. Nevertheless, such agreements were never concluded and no State is obligated to make troops available to the Council in a particular situation. Consequently, the United Nations has to enter into negotiations every time a situation calls for the establishment of an operation.

[78] Webpage: “Military.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 6, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

All military personnel working under the Blue Helmet are first and foremost members of their own national armies and are then seconded to work under the command and control of the UN.

We have more than 100,000 UN uniformed personnel coming from over 120 countries. …

It takes considerable time to deploy troops and we are often asked why we do not have a standing reserve.

The UN can only deploy military personnel when there is a UN Security Council resolution authorizing them to do so. The Security Council will say how many military personnel are required, and UN Headquarters will liaise with the Member States to identify personnel and deploy them. This can take time—often more than six months from the date of the resolution to get boots and equipment on the ground.

[79] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 43

1 All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2 Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

[80] Webpage: “Actions with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Chapter VII).” United Nations Security Council. Accessed December 3, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 43 – Member States’ Obligation to Offer Assistance in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security

The obligation for United Nations members to undertake to make armed forces available to the Security Council, render assistance and accord relief as necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security exists only in accordance with one or more special agreements. Nevertheless, such agreements were never concluded and no State is obligated to make troops available to the Council in a particular situation. Consequently, the United Nations has to enter into negotiations every time a situation calls for the establishment of an operation.

[81] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 92

The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.

[82] Webpage: “Members of the Court.” International Court of Justice. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. These organs vote simultaneously but separately. In order to be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes in both bodies. This sometimes makes it necessary for a number of rounds of voting to be held.

In order to ensure a degree of continuity, one third of the Court is elected every three years. Judges are eligible for re-election. Should a judge die or resign during his or her term of office, a special election is held as soon as possible to choose a judge to fill the unexpired part of the term.

Elections are held in New York (United States of America) during the annual autumn session of the General Assembly. The judges elected at a triennial election commence their term of office on 6 February of the following year, after which the Court holds a secret ballot to elect a President and a Vice-President to hold office for three years.

[83] Webpage: “The Court.” International Court of Justice. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

“The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).”

[84] Webpage: “The Court.” International Court of Justice. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). … The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.”

[85] Webpage: “How the Court Works.” International Court of Justice. Accessed October 30, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

Only States (States Members of the United Nations and other States which have become parties to the Statute of the Court or which have accepted its jurisdiction under certain conditions) may be parties to contentious cases.

The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways:

• by entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;

• by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a dispute of a given type or disagreement over the interpretation or application of the treaty, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court;

• through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute, whereby each has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having made a similar declaration. A number of these declarations, which must be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General, contain reservations excluding certain categories of dispute.

[86] “Statute of the International Court of Justice.” United Nations. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

Article 36

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

a) the interpretation of a treaty;

b) any question of international law;

c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

3. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain states, or for a certain time.

4. Such declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the parties to the Statute and to the Registrar of the Court.

5. Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms.

[87] Webpage: “Basis of the Court’s Jurisdiction.” International Court of Justice. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

The jurisdiction of the Court in contentious proceedings is based on the consent of the States to which it is open.1 The form in which this consent is expressed determines the manner in which a case may be brought before the Court.

(a) Special Agreement

Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute provides that the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it. Such cases normally come before the Court by notification to the Registry of an agreement known as a special agreement, concluded by the parties specially for this purpose.2

(b) Matters Provided for in Treaties and Conventions

Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute also provides that the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force. Such matters are normally brought before the Court by means of a written application instituting proceedings;3 this is a unilateral document which must indicate the subject of the dispute and the parties … and, as far as possible, specify the provision on which the applicant founds the jurisdiction of the Court (Rules, Art. 38). …

(c) Compulsory Jurisdiction in Legal Disputes

The Statute provides that a State may recognize as compulsory, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in legal disputes. …

[88] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Secretariat comprises the Secretary-General and tens of thousands of international UN staff members who carry out the day-to-day work of the UN as mandated by the General Assembly and the Organization’s other principal organs. The Secretary-General is chief administrative officer of the Organization, appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council for a five-year, renewable term.

[89] Webpage: “Appointment Process.” United Nations, United Nations Secretary-General. Accessed October 31, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Security Council. The Secretary-General’s selection is therefore subject to the veto of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council. … Although there is technically no limit to number of five-year terms a Secretary-General may serve, none so far has held office for more than two terms.

[90] Webpage: “The Role of the Secretary-General.” United Nations. Accessed October 31, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“Each year, the Secretary-General issues a report on the work of the United Nations that appraises its activities and outlines future priorities.”

[91] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The Secretariat comprises the Secretary-General and tens of thousands of international UN staff members who carry out the day-to-day work of the UN as mandated by the General Assembly and the Organization’s other principal organs.”

[92] Webpage: “Secretariat.” United Nations. Accessed October 31, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The Secretariat, one of the main organs of the UN, is organized along departmental lines, with each department or office having a distinct area of action and responsibility. Offices and departments coordinate with each other to ensure cohesion as they carry out the day to day work of the Organization in offices and duty stations around the world.”

[93] Webpage: “Office of Internal Oversight Services.” Office of Internal Oversight Services. Accessed October 31, 2018 at <oios.un.org>

The Office of Internal Oversight Services is the internal oversight body of the United Nations. Established in 1994 by the General Assembly, the office assists the Secretary-General in fulfilling his oversight responsibilities in respect of the resources and staff of the Organization through the provision of audit, investigation, inspection, and evaluation services. The Office aims to be an agent of change that promotes responsible administration of resources, a culture of accountability and transparency, and improved programme performance.

[94] Webpage: “What We Do.” United Nations, Department of Political Affairs. Accessed October 31, 2018 at <dpa.un.org>

DPA [Department of Political Affairs] monitors and assesses global political developments with an eye to detecting potential crises before they erupt and devising effective responses. The Department provides support to the Secretary-General and his envoys, as well as to UN political missions deployed around the world to help defuse crises or promote lasting solutions to conflict.

[95] Webpage: “Department of Peacekeeping Operations.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 5, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) is dedicated to assisting the Member States and the Secretary-General in their efforts to maintain international peace and security.

DPKO provides political and executive direction to UN Peacekeeping operations around the world and maintains contact with the Security Council, troop and financial contributors, and parties to the conflict in the implementation of Security Council mandates.

[96] Webpage: “Who We Are.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 21, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

“OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] is the part of the United Nations Secretariat responsible for bringing together humanitarian actors to ensure a coherent response to emergencies. OCHA also ensures there is a framework within which each actor can contribute to the overall response effort.”

[97] Webpage: “Who We Are.” United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Accessed November 21, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“UN DESA [Department of Economic and Social Affairs] holds up the development pillar of the UN Secretariat. Its Divisions and Offices work together towards a common goal to promote the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”

[98] Webpage: “Who We Are.” United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Accessed November 21, 2018 at <www.ohchr.org>

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Human Rights) is the leading UN entity on human rights. The General Assembly entrusted both the High Commissioner and her Office with a unique mandate to promote and protect all human rights for all people. …

UN Human Rights provides assistance in the form of technical expertise and capacity-development in order to support the implementation of international human rights standards on the ground. It assists governments, which bear the primary responsibility for the protection of human rights, to fulfil their obligations and supports individuals to claim their rights. Moreover, it speaks out objectively on human rights violations.

UN Human Rights is part of the United Nations Secretariat, with a staff of some 1300 people and its headquarters in Geneva, as well as an office in New York. It has field presences that comprise regional and country/stand-alone offices. Furthermore, UN Human Rights supports the human rights components of UN peace missions or political offices and deploys human rights advisers to work with the United Nations Country teams.

[99] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The Economic and Social Council is the principal body for coordination, policy review, policy dialogue and recommendations on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as implementation of internationally agreed development goals.”

[100] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 61

1 The Economic and Social Council shall consist of fifty-four Members of the United Nations elected by the General Assembly.

2 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, eighteen members of the Economic and Social Council shall be elected each year for a term of three years. A retiring member shall be eligible for immediate re-election. …

Article 67

1 Each member of the Economic and Social Council shall have one vote.

2 Decisions of the Economic and Social Council shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

[101] Webpage: “ECOSOC Members.” United Nations Economic and Social Council. Accessed October 31, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Council’s 54 member Governments are elected by the General Assembly for overlapping three-year terms. Seats on the Council are allotted based on geographical representation with fourteen allocated to African States, eleven to Asian States, six to Eastern European States, ten to Latin American and Caribbean States, and thirteen to Western European and other States.

[102] Webpage: “About Us.” United Nations Economic and Social Council. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Economic and Social Council is at the heart of the United Nations system to advance the three dimensions of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental. …

Each year, ECOSOC structures its work around an annual theme of global importance to sustainable development. This ensures focused attention, among ECOSOC’s array of partners, and throughout the UN development system. …

ECOSOC’s annual High-Level Segment includes:

• High-Level Political Forum provides political leadership, guidance and recommendations for sustainable development, and reviews progress in implementing sustainable development commitments.

• Development Cooperation Forum reviews trends and progress in development cooperation.

[103] Webpage: “High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.” United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development Goals. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <sustainabledevelopment.un.org>

The Forum meets annually under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council….

The HLPF [High-Level Political Forum] is the main United Nations platform on sustainable development and it has a central role in the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the global level.

[104] Entry: “United Nations.” By Cecelia M. Lynch, Jacques Fomerand, and Karen Mingst. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Last updated 9/20/18. <www.britannica.com>

Designed to be the UN’s main venue for the discussion of international economic and social issues, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) directs and coordinates the economic, social, humanitarian, and cultural activities of the UN and its specialized agencies. Established by the UN Charter, ECOSOC is empowered to recommend international action on economic and social issues; promote universal respect for human rights; and work for global cooperation on health, education, and cultural and related areas. ECOSOC conducts studies; formulates resolutions, recommendations, and conventions for consideration by the General Assembly; and coordinates the activities of various UN programs and specialized agencies.

[105] Paper: “The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.” By Gert Rosenthal. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Dialogue on Globalization, February 2005. <library.fes.de>

Page 4: [T]he Charter makes clear that the decisions taken by the Council are not binding on member states, or even on the specialized agencies of the United Nations System.”

[106] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 77

1 The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

a. territories now held under mandate;

b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and

c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

[107] Webpage: “Main Organs.” United Nations. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Trusteeship Council was established … to provide international supervision for 11 Trust Territories that had been placed under the administration of seven Member States, and ensure that adequate steps were taken to prepare the Territories for self-government and independence. By 1994, all Trust Territories had attained self-government or independence. The Trusteeship Council suspended operation on 1 November 1994.

[108] Webpage: “International Trusteeship System.” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

In 1945, under Chapter XII of the Charter, the United Nations established the International Trusteeship System for the supervision of Trust Territories placed under it by individual agreements with the States administering them.

Under Article 77 of the Charter, the Trusteeship System applied to:

• Territories held under Mandates established by the League of Nations after the First World War;

• Territories detached from “enemy States” as a result of the Second World War;

• Territories voluntarily placed under the System by States responsible for their administration. …

The Security Council in 1994 terminated the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement for the last Territory—the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau), administered by the United States….

In the early years of the United Nations, 11 Territories were placed under the Trusteeship System. Today, all 11 Territories have either become independent States or have voluntary associated themselves with a State. With no Territories left in its agenda, the Trusteeship System had completed its historic task.

[109] Dataset: “Total Expenditure.” United Nations System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination. Accessed November 14, 2018 at <www.unsceb.org>

“2016 … Expenditure [=] 48,764,755,110”

[110] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 2 (of PDF):

U.N. bodies are funded by a combination of assessed and voluntary contributions. Assessed contributions are required dues shared among U.N. member states to pay for the expenses of the organization. The U.N. regular budget, peacekeeping operations, and specialized agencies are funded mainly by assessed contributions. Voluntary contributions fund U.N. funds, programs, and offices.

[111] Webpage: “Committee on Contributions.” General Assembly of the United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Committee on Contributions advises the General Assembly on the apportionment, under Article 17, of the expenses of the Organization among Members broadly according to capacity to pay. The Committee also advises the General Assembly on the assessments to be fixed for new Members, and on appeals by Members for a change of assessments. …

… The report of the Committee is considered by the General Assembly at its main session.

[112] Webpage: “Committee on Contributions: Regular Budget and Working Capital Fund.” General Assembly of the United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

[T]he General Assembly decided that the scale of assessments for the period 2016–2018 shall be based on the following elements and criteria:

1. Estimates of gross national income;

2. Average statistical base periods of three and six years;

3. Conversion rates based on market exchange rates, except where that would cause excessive fluctuations and distortions in the income of some Member States, when price-adjusted rates of exchange or other appropriate conversion rates should be employed, taking due account of its resolution 46/221 B;

4. The debt-burden approach employed in the scale of assessments for the period 2013–2015;

5. A low per capita income adjustment of 80 per cent, with a threshold per capita income limit of the average per capita gross national income of all Member States for the statistical base periods;

6. A minimum assessment rate of 0.001 per cent;

7. A maximum assessment rate for the least developed countries of 0.01 per cent;

8. A maximum assessment rate of 22 per cent.

[113] Webpage: “Rules of Procedure.” General Assembly of the United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Rule 158

The General Assembly shall appoint an expert Committee on Contributions consisting of eighteen members.

Composition

Rule 159

The members of the Committee on Contributions, no two of whom shall be nationals of the same State, shall be selected on the basis of broad geographical representation, personal qualifications and experience and shall serve for a period of three years corresponding to three calendar years. Members shall retire by rotation and shall be eligible for reappointment. The General Assembly shall appoint the members of the Committee on Contributions at the regular session immediately preceding the expiration of the term of office of the members or, in the case of vacancies, at the next session.

Functions

Rule 160

The Committee on Contributions shall advise the General Assembly concerning the apportionment, under Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter, of the expenses of the Organization among Members, broadly according to capacity to pay. The scale of assessments, when once fixed by the General Assembly, shall not be subject to a general revision for at least three years unless it is clear that there have been substantial changes in relative capacity to pay. The Committee shall also advise the General Assembly on the assessments to be fixed for new Members, on appeals by Members for a change of assessments and on the action to be taken with regard to the application of Article 19 of the Charter.

[114] Webpage: “Committee on Contributions: Assessments.” General Assembly of the United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Assessment is the term used for the amount of money that the General Assembly determines should be assessed to finance the approved appropriation, which is shared among Member States to pay for the expenses of the Organization. Assessments are made to Member States for the following:

• Regular budget

• International tribunals

• Capital master plan

• Peacekeeping operations

[115] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 17

1 The General Assembly shall consider and approve the budget of the Organization. …

Article 18

2 Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include: … budgetary questions.

[116] Webpage: “UN Documentation: Principal Budgeting Bodies.” United Nations, Dag Hammarskjold Library. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <research.un.org>

The Secretary-General and the Secretariat prepare the following documents for consideration by the General Assembly and its subsidiaries:

• Proposed Strategic Framework

• Proposed Programme Budget

• First and Second Performance Reports

• Programme Performance for the Biennium

• Financial Report and Audited Financial Statements …

Chapter IV, Article 17 of the Charter of the United Nations gives the General Assembly responsibility for approving the budget. Substantive deliberations about the budget are generally delegated to the appropriate entities:

• Fifth Committee

• Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions

• Committee for Programme and Coordination

• Board of Auditors

• Committee on Contributions

Resolutions and decisions about the budget are adopted by the plenary of the General Assembly and may touch on any aspect of the planning, programming, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation cycle. In general, the General Assembly takes action on the budget on the basis of the recommendation of the Fifth Committee.

[117] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 3:

U.N. members pay assessed contributions to the U.N. regular budget, which funds the core administrative costs of the organization.8 … As outlined in the U.N. Charter, budget decisions are made by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in the Assembly, with each country having one vote. Since the late 1980s, however, decisions related to the budget have, with few exceptions, been adopted by consensus.

8 Core administrative costs include the General Assembly, Security Council, Secretariat, International Court of Justice, special political missions, and human rights mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council.

[118] Webpage: “UN Documentation: Introduction.” United Nations, Dag Hammarskjold Library. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <research.un.org>

“The UN programme budget now covers a two year period, beginning in January of an even-numbered year (e.g. 2016–2017).”

[119] Article: “General Assembly Approves $5.4 Billion UN Budget for Next Two Years.” United Nations UN News, December 26, 2017. <news.un.org>

“Concluding the main part of its 72nd session, the United Nations General Assembly on Sunday took a number of key actions, including approving a nearly $5.4 billion programme budget for the Organization for the biennium 2018–2019.”

[120] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 3: “The approved U.N. regular budget for the 2018–2019 biennium is $5.39 billion (about $2.7 billion per year).9

[121] Calculated with data from the report: “Assessment of Member States’ Advances to the Working Capital Fund for the Biennium 2018–2019 and Contributions to the United Nations Regular Budget for 2018.” United Nations Secretariat, December 29, 2017. <undocs.org>

Pages 8–12: “B. Contributions by Member States to the United Nations Regular Budget for the Year 2018.”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[122] Report: “Assessment of Member States’ Advances to the Working Capital Fund for the Biennium 2018–2019 and Contributions to the United Nations Regular Budget for 2018.” United Nations Secretariat, December 29, 2017. <undocs.org>

Pages 8–12: “B. Contributions by Member States to the United Nations Regular Budget for the Year 2018.”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data is available upon request.

[123] Webpage: “How We Are Funded.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

The approved budget for UN Peacekeeping operations for the fiscal year 1 July 2018–30 June 2019 is $6.7 billion. …

The Secretary-General submits budget proposal to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). The ACABQ reviews the proposal and makes recommendations to the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee for its review and approval. Ultimately, the budget is endorsed by the General Assembly as a whole.

[124] Webpage: “How We Are Funded.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

The General Assembly apportions peacekeeping expenses based on a special scale of assessments under a complex formula that Member States themselves have established. This formula takes into account, among other things, the relative economic wealth of Member States, with the five permanent members of the Security Council required to pay a larger share because of their special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

[125] “Report of the Secretary-General: Implementation of General Assembly Resolutions 55/235 and 55/236.” United Nations General Assembly, December 28, 2015. <undocs.org>

Page 2:

Effective Rates of Assessment for Peacekeeping Operations, 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018, Based on the Scale of Assessments Adopted by the General Assembly in Its Resolution 70/245 and the Composition of Levels Endorsed by the Assembly in Its Resolution 70/246 …

Level A … 2018 … China [=] 10.2377 … France [=] 6.2801 … Russian Federation [=] 3.9912 … United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [=] 5.7683 … United States of America [=] 28.4344 … Total A [=] 54.7116

[126] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 4:

There are currently 15 specialized agencies in the U.N. system, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Bank Group (Figure 3).11 Each of these entities is a legally independent intergovernmental organization with its own constitution, rules, membership, organs, and financial resources, including scale of assessments. Some agencies follow the assessment levels for the U.N. regular budget, while others use their own formulas. The United States is a member of all specialized agencies except for the U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and U.N. World Tourism Organization (WTO); it is currently in the process of withdrawing from the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).12

[127] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 1: “The United States is the largest single financial contributor to the United Nations (U.N.) system.”

[128] Dataset: “Total Revenue by Government Donor.” United Nations System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination. Accessed November 14, 2018 at <www.unsceb.org>

“2016 … United States of America [=] 9,718,025,938”

[129] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Total Revenue by Government Donor.” United Nations System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination. Accessed November 14, 2018 at <www.unsceb.org>

“2016 … United States of America [=] 9,718,025,938”

b) Dataset: “Table 7.1. Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last revised January 26, 2018. <www.bea.gov>

“Population (Midperiod, Thousands) … 2016 [=] 323,668”

CALCULATION: $9,718,025,938 / 323,668,000 people = $30.02 per person

[130] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Total Revenue by Government Donor.” United Nations System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination. Accessed November 14, 2018 at <www.unsceb.org>

“2016 … United States of America [=] 9,718,025,938”

b) Report: “Fiscal Year 2019 Historical Tables: Budget of the U.S. Government.” White House Office of Management and Budget, February 3, 2018. <www.whitehouse.gov>

Pages 50–59: “Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2023 … In Millions of Dollars … International Affairs … 2016 [=] 45,306”

CALCULATION: $9,718,025,938 / $45,306,000,000 = 21.4%

NOTE: The available data on international affairs expenditures is for the federal government’s 2016 fiscal year, which was October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016.

[131] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Total Revenue by Government Donor.” United Nations System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination. Accessed November 14, 2018 at <www.unsceb.org>

“2016 … United States of America [=] 9,718,025,938”

b) Dataset: “Total Revenue.” United Nations System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination. Accessed November 14, 2018 at <www.unsceb.org>

“2016 … Revenue [=] 49,333,227,820 … The revenue amounts reflect total revenue as reported by organizations in their respective financial statements, without adjustments for revenue and or expenses associated with transfers of funding between UN organizations.”

CALCULATION: $9,718,025,938 / $49,333,227,820 = 19.7%

[132] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 8:

An ongoing challenge facing U.S. policymakers is tracking and determining the full scope of U.S. funding to the U.N. system across all U.S. government agencies and accounts. There is no “one number” that represents total U.S. funding to the U.N. system at any given point in time. This is due to the complicated nature of U.S. and U.N. budget processes, the decentralized structure of the United Nations, and the range of U.S. government agencies, departments, and offices that, either directly or indirectly, fund various U.N. entities and activities. Over the decades, Congress has enacted several U.N. funding-related reporting requirements to help address this issue. While some have provided useful snapshots of U.S. funding during particular time periods or to select U.N. bodies, for a variety of reasons few have consistently or comprehensively captured the full scope of U.S. contributions to the entire U.N. system.21

Page 18:

A key challenge to compiling U.N. funding-related data is one of self-reporting. According to the State Department, each participating agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the information provided in the reports, and not all executive branch agencies provide the requested data. The agencies charged with compiling the reports, such as the State Department or OMB, often lack the authority to require other agencies to respond accurately or within a given timeframe, if at all. Consequently, some reporting requirements are incomplete and may not illustrate the full scope of U.S contributions.

[133] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Agency Revenue by Government Donor (Voluntary Contributions, Non-Specified).” United Nations System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination. Accessed November 14, 2018 at <www.unsceb.org>

b) Dataset: “Agency Revenue by Government Donor (Voluntary Contributions, Specified).” United Nations System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination. Accessed November 14, 2018 at <www.unsceb.org>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[134] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 7: “Voluntary contributions to U.N. humanitarian-related entities are funded through the global humanitarian accounts…. Congress generally appropriates overall funding for each of these accounts, while the executive branch determines how funds are allocated based on humanitarian needs and U.S. policy priorities.”

Page 12:

The majority of U.S. humanitarian assistance is provided to U.N. entities through the global humanitarian accounts, which fund voluntary contributions to U.N. entities.38 These contributions, which represent the bulk of U.S. funding to the United Nations, are sometimes viewed through a different lens because they do not fall under the umbrella of U.N. assessed contributions. Yet total U.S. funding to U.N. humanitarian-related activities is often equal to or greater than U.S. contributions to peacekeeping, the regular budget, and specialized agencies combined.

[135] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 14: “Withholding funding from U.N. entities is one of the most common mechanisms by which Congress asserts or seeks to influence U.S. policy at the United Nations.”

[136] Report: “United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues.” By Marjorie Ann Browne. Congressional Research Service, January 15, 2013. <fas.org>

Page 53:

In 1993, Congress provided that 10% of the U.S. assessed contribution to the U.N. regular budget be available only when the Secretary of State had certified to Congress that “the United Nations has established an independent office with responsibilities and powers substantially similar to offices of Inspectors General authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978.”150 Many in Congress believed that an independent mechanism was needed to reduce and eliminate instances of “waste, fraud, and abuse” at the United Nations. On November 16, 1993, U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright proposed that the United Nations establish such a post. On July 29, 1994, the General Assembly established an Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) headed by an Under-Secretary General appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General with the approval of the General Assembly.151 Eleven annual reports on the activities of the office through June 30, 2005, have been submitted to the General Assembly, and the office has undertaken an increasing number of monitoring, auditing, and investigative activities.152

[137] Resolution 48/218B. United Nations General Assembly, August 12, 1994. <undocs.org>

“The General Assembly … decides to establish an Office of Internal Oversight Services under the authority of the Secretary-General, the head of which will be at the rank of Under-Secretary-General….”

[138] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 16:

Since the 1980s, the United States has withheld a proportionate share of assessed contributions to the U.N. regular budget for selected activities or programs related to the Palestinians (Section 114 of P.L. 98–164). This provision has impacted U.N. regular budget funding through the CIO [Contributions to International Organizations] account. … Two laws enacted in the 1990s prohibit funding to U.N. entities that admit the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as a member, or grant full membership as a state to any group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood (Section 414 of P.L. 101–246; Section 410 of P.L. 103–236).

[139] Report: “The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).” By Luisa Blanchfield and Marjorie Ann Brown. Congressional Research Service, March 18, 2013. <fas.org>

Page 1:

The Obama Administration actively opposes Palestinian membership in UNESCO [UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization]. It argues that Palestinian statehood can only be realized through direct negotiation between Israel and Palestinians, and not through membership in international organizations. At the same time, the Administration maintains that U.S. participation in UNESCO is in the interest of the United States and that the government should continue to fund and participate in the organization. In his FY2013 budget proposal, President Obama requested $78.968 million in assessed contributions for UNESCO and stated that the Administration intended to work with Congress to “waive” the funding restrictions.

[140] Article: “U.S. Withdrawal From the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service Insight, October 17, 2017. <fas.org>

Page 2 (of PDF): The Obama Administration asked Congress to support legislation that would provide authority to waive the legislative restrictions; Congress did not enact such a waiver. … In November 2013, as a result of the financial withholding, the United States lost its vote in the UNESCO General Conference.”

[141] Press release: “Loss of U.S. Vote at UNESCO.” By Jen Psaki. U.S. Department of State, November 8, 2013. <2009-2017.state.gov>

We regret that today the United States lost its vote in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Conference as a result of legislative restrictions that have precluded payment of U.S. dues to UNESCO. The restrictions were triggered when UNESCO member states voted to grant the Palestinians membership as a state in 2011.

[142] Press release: “The United States Withdraws from UNESCO.” By Heather Nauert. U.S. Department of State, October 12, 2017. <www.state.gov>

On October 12, 2017, the Department of State notified UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the organization and to seek to establish a permanent observer mission to UNESCO. This decision was not taken lightly, and reflects U.S. concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO. … Pursuant to Article II(6) of the UNESCO Constitution, U.S. withdrawal will take effect on December 31, 2018.

[143] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed January 21, 2019 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President's Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

Department of State

The Department of State plays the lead role in developing and implementing the President’s foreign policy. Major responsibilities include United States representation abroad, foreign assistance, foreign military training programs, countering international crime, and a wide assortment of services to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals seeking entrance to the U.S.

[144] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 14:

Congress has at times limited U.S. payments to assessed budgets due to concerns that U.S. assessments were too high. In 1990s, for example, Congress capped the U.S. contribution to the U.N. regular budget at 22% and the U.N. peacekeeping assessment at 25%.44

44 Both of these caps are stated in U.S. law. The U.N. regular budget cap is included in United Nations Reform Act of 1999, Title IX of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (H.R. 3427), incorporated by reference in Section 1000(a)(7) of division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106–113), November 19, 1999. The peacekeeping cap is included in Section 404 of P.L. 103–236, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, April 30, 1994.

Page 28: “Table E-1. U.N. and U.S. Peacekeeping Assessment Levels: FY1994–FY2019. … 1995 … U.N. Assessment [=] 31.1510% … Recognized by U.S. Law [=] 30.4% through Sept.; 25% beginning Oct. 1 … 1996 … U.N. Assessment [=] 30.9650% … Recognized by U.S. Law [=] 25%”

[145] Public Law 103-236: “Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.” 103rd Congress. Signed into law by Bill Clinton on April 30, 1994. <www.govinfo.gov>

Title IV, Part A, Section 404:

Assessed Contributions for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations

(b) Limitation on United States Contributions

(2) Subsequent Fiscal Years—Funds authorized to be appropriated for “Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities” for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1995 shall not be available for the payment of the United States assessed contribution for a United Nations peacekeeping operation in an amount which is greater than 25 percent of the total of all assessed contributions for that operation.

[146] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 19

A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

[147] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 17:

A consequence of accumulating arrears to the United Nations is the loss of voting rights in the General Assembly. Under Article 19 of the U.N. Charter, members who are in arrears “shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years.” In practice, the “amount of the contributions” refers to both assessed contributions to the U.N. regular budget and to U.N peacekeeping operations.49 Each U.N. specialized agency has its own rules and guidelines for nonpayment of arrears and the possible effects on membership.

[148] Textbook: Oppenheim’s International Law: United Nations. By Rosalyn Higgins and others. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Page 489:

The loss of the right to vote is automatic and not dependent upon a General Assembly resolution.196

196 The automatic effect of Art 19 is confirmed by the ordinary meaning of the text (“shall have no vote”), the reference to the General Assembly’s taking a positive action in the second clause of the Article, and a comparison with Art 5 of the UN’s Charter, which does require a constitutive resolution (Tomuschat, n 194, 645). This was the view adopted by the Legal Counsel when the Soviet Union claimed that a two-thirds majority of the Assembly was required ([1968] UN Juridical YB 186–8. The same view was expressed in 1974 ([1974] UN Juridical YB 156–7). The compromise of 1965 avoided the application of Art 19 (see also para 14.47).

[149] Report: “U.N Secretary-General’s Interpretation of Article 19.” By U Thant. United Nations General Assembly, July 26, 1968. <www.jstor.org>

It has always been the understanding of the Secretary-General that the express language of the first sentence of Article 19 does not call for a decision of the General Assembly prior to deprivation of vote…. The Secretary-General believes that voting under Article 19 is only required in two possible instances…. The first instance would be if the Secretary-General’s reports indicating that one or more States were in arrears were challenged as factually incorrect. The second instance would be if a Member State in arrears were to request the Assembly to exercise the discretion accorded in the second sentence of Article 19 to permit that Member State to vote, provided the Assembly is satisfied that failure to pay was due to conditions beyond the Member State’s control. …

The foregoing conclusions are based upon legal considerations which are set out in a detailed opinion of the Legal Counsel.

[150] Report: “United Nations: Financial Issues and U.S. Arrears.” U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1998. <www.gao.gov>

Page 49:

In the past, a number of governments have contested U.N. arrears, and the General Assembly has agreed to either waive article 19 or forgive the debt owed. For example, in 1964–65, although the former Soviet Union, France, and several other countries supported the resolution creating the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East (UNEF, later referred to as UNEF I) and the United Nations Operation in Congo (ONUC), they refused to pay for peacekeeping operations and U.N. regular budget expenses related to the operations. By 1964, arrears of the former Soviet Union exceeded the level permitted to maintain its voting rights in the General Assembly. France became subject to the article 19 sanction by January 1, 1965. The U.S. Representative to the United Nations announced before the General Assembly that there could be no double standard in the United Nations. If any member state could insist on making an exception to its obligations with respect to certain activities, “the United States reserves the same option to make exceptions.” The General Assembly decided to waive all member’s arrears for these operations. The arrears for these countries are still counted in the total unpaid contributions owed, but are not included in calculations for article 19.

[151] Article: “United States Dues Arrearages in the United Nations and Possible Loss of Vote in the UN General Assembly.” By Frederic L. Kirgis. American Society of International Law Insights, July 3, 1998. <www.asil.org>

[M]ost member states were unwilling to risk the consequences if a vote were taken in the General Assembly without allowing France and the Soviet Union to participate. The result was a standoff during the 19th session (1964–1965), when no votes at all were taken in the General Assembly. Finally, on August 16, 1965, Arthur Goldberg, the United States representative to the United Nations, conceded that “the General Assembly was not prepared to carry out the relevant provisions of the Charter, that is, to apply the loss-of-vote sanction provided in Article 19.” Thus even though the United States continued to maintain that Article 19 applied, it said it would not stand in the way of the consensus favoring General Assembly votes, including votes by France and the Soviet Union. Ambassador Goldberg concluded in what has come to be known as the Goldberg reservation, “At the same time, if any Member State could make an exception to the principle of collective financial responsibility with respect to certain United Nations activities, the United States reserves the same option to make exceptions if, in its view, there were strong and compelling reasons to do so. There could be no double standard among the Members of the Organization.” (13 Marjorie Whiteman, Digest of International Law 331-332 (1968))

[152] Report: “United Nations: Status of U.S. Contributions and Arrears.” U.S. General Accounting Office, July 28, 1999. <www.gao.gov>

Page 6:

We estimate that the United States will need to pay about $153 million in addition to currently anticipated payments of $508 million before the end of 1999 to reduce its arrears sufficiently to avoid losing its right to vote in the General Assembly on January 1, 2000. Our estimate of this shortfall reflects the difference between a projected arrears balance on January 1, 2000, of $1,435 million and projected assessed contributions for 1998 and 1999 of $1,282 million (see table 2). Changes in these assumptions or U.N. financial needs during the remainder of 1999, particularly changes in the amount of peacekeeping assessments that the United States receives and pays, could affect our estimate.

[153] Report: “United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues.” By Vita Bite. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 20, 2005. <fas.org>

Pages 5–6:

The Helms-Biden Agreement and Payment of U.N. Arrears

P.L. [public law] 106-113 incorporated the Helms-Biden agreement and authorized appropriations for payment of some U.S. arrears to international organizations provided certain conditions were met and certified by the Secretary of State. The agreement authorized payment of $819 million ($100 million of FY1998 funds, $475 million of FY1999 funds, and $244 million of FY2000 funds), and authorized $107 million owed by the United Nations to the United States for peacekeeping to be forgiven provided the United Nations applied it to reduce U.S. arrears.

P.L. 106-113 required that State Department certification for release of FY1998 funds include stipulations that neither the United Nations nor any U.N. affiliated agency has required the United States to violate the Constitution or cede sovereignty, taxed U.S. nationals, created a standing army, charged the United States interest on arrears, borrowed externally, or exercised authority or control over any U.S. national park, wildlife preserve, monument or property. In December 1999 the certification was made and $100 million was paid to the United Nations.

Release of FY1999 appropriated arrearage funds required additional certification that the assessment ceiling for the U.N. regular budget had been reduced to 22% and to 25% for U.N. peacekeeping.

In December 2000 the U.N. General Assembly agreed on a financial restructuring of both the regular and peacekeeping assessment structures. As a result the U.S. share of the regular budget was reduced from 25% to 22% and for peacekeeping from about 30.4% to 28.14%, initially, and falling somewhat lower in subsequent years.

The changed assessment scale met the requirement of the Helms-Biden agreement for reduction of the regular budget scale to 22%, in order to release the second tranche of arrears payment. The new peacekeeping scale, however, while a substantial reduction, did not meet the Helms-Biden requirement of 25%. On October 5, 2001, the President signed into law P.L. 107-46 (S. 248) which raised the percentage for U.S. peacekeeping assessments from 25 to 28.15 as a condition for release of arrears funds, thereby making available $582 million (FY1999 appropriations of $475 million, plus $107 million credit to the United Nations against U.S. arrears).

However, because of another existing statutory prohibition on U.S. payment of more than 25% of U.N. assessed peacekeeping costs (sec. 404, P.L. 103-236), the United States continued to build up arrears in its assessed peacekeeping payments. P.L. 107-228 (H.R. 1646), the Foreign Relations Authorization for FY2003, changed the allowable level for U.S. peacekeeping assessments as follows: for calendar year 2001, 28.15%; for calendar year 2002, 27.9%; for calendar year 2003, 27.4%; and for calendar year 2004, 27.4%. P.L. 108- 447 raised the cap to 27.1% for calendar year 2005.

Payment of the third installment of U.S. arrears from FY2000 appropriations required certification that the United Nations and designated U.N. specialized agencies (FAO, ILO, and WHO) had reduced the maximum assessment levels to 20% (waivable to 22%, in effect) and had instituted a number of other administrative reforms.

P.L. 107-228 also amended the Helms-Biden agreement to allow the third and last installment of arrears to be paid to each international organization upon certification of the conditions established for that agency or immediately if no conditions applied. Certification was made on October 21, 2002, and the final $244 million was paid ($30 million for U.N. peacekeeping arrears and the other $214 million to other international organizations including U.N. system agencies).

[154] Resolution 55/5C: “Scale of Assessments for the Apportionment of the Expenses of the United Nations.” United Nations General Assembly, December 23, 2000. <www.un.org>

“The General Assembly … establishes, as from 1 January 2001, a reduced ceiling of 22 per cent for the assessed contribution of any individual Member State….”

[155] Report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 11:

The U.S. assessment for U.N. peacekeeping operations is 28.43%; however, since the mid-1990s Congress has capped the U.S. assessment at 25%—at times leading to funding shortfalls.32 Over the years, the State Department and Congress covered these shortfalls by raising the cap for limited periods and allowing for the application of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess U.N. funds from previous peacekeeping missions) to be applied to U.S. outstanding balances.33 For several years, these actions resulted in full U.S. payments to U.N. peacekeeping; however, in FY2017 and FY2018 Congress declined to raise the cap, and since mid-2017 the Trump Administration has allowed for the application of peacekeeping credits up to, and not beyond, the 25% cap.34

[156] Calculated with data from the report: “U.S. Funding to the United Nations System: Overview and Selected Policy Issues.” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service. Updated April 25, 2018. <fas.org>

Page 17: “As of September 2017, the State Department reports that total estimated U.S. arrears to the U.N. regular budget are $347 million, while estimated arrears to U.N. peacekeeping budgets are $536 million.51

CALCULATION: $347,000,000 + $536,000,000 = $883,000,000

[157] Report: “Assessment of Member States’ Advances to the Working Capital Fund for the Biennium 2018–2019 and Contributions to the United Nations Regular Budget for 2018.” United Nations Secretariat, December 29, 2017. <undocs.org>

Pages 8–12: “B. Contributions by Member States to the United Nations Regular Budget for the Year 2018 (United States Dollars). … United States of America … Scale of Assessments (percentage) [=] 22.000 … Gross Contributions [=] 591,388,114”

[158] Calculated with data from:

a) Webpage: “How We Are Funded.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

“The approved budget for UN Peacekeeping operations for the fiscal year 1 July 2018–30 June 2019 is $6.7 billion.”

b) “Report of the Secretary-General: Implementation of General Assembly Resolutions 55/235 and 55/236.” United Nations General Assembly, December 28, 2015. <undocs.org>

Page 2: “Effective Rates of Assessment for Peacekeeping Operations, 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018, Based on the Scale of Assessments Adopted by the General Assembly in Its Resolution 70/245 and the Composition of Levels Endorsed by the Assembly in Its Resolution 70/246 … United States of America … Effective Rates … 2018 [=] 28.4344”

CALCULATION: $6,700,000,000 budget × 28% assessment rate = $1,876,000,000

[159] Webpage: “Maintain International Peace and Security.” United Nations. Accessed October 11, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The United Nations came into being … with one central mission: the maintenance of international peace and security. … The UN Security Council has the primary responsibility for international peace and security.”

[160] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 24

1 In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

[161] Entry: “United Nations.” By Cecelia M. Lynch, Jacques Fomerand, and Karen Mingst. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Last updated 9/20/18. <www.britannica.com>

“The main function of the United Nations is to preserve international peace and security. Chapter 6 of the Charter provides for the pacific settlement of disputes, through the intervention of the Security Council, by means such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and judicial decisions.”

[162] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 23

The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council. …

Article 27

1 Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2 Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3 Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

[163] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 27

3 Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. …

Chapter VI: Pacific Settlement of Disputes

Article 52

3 The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangement or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.

[164] Paper: “Russia’s Veto in the Security Council: Whither the Duty to Abstain Under Art. 27(3) of the UN Charter?” By Enrico Milano. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 2015. Pages 215–231. <www.zaoerv.de>

Pages 222–223:

The obligatory abstention under Art. 27, para. 3, was consistently honoured and recalled in the first years of the organization. A glimpse at the Repertoire of the practice of the Security Council in the time frame 1946–1951 shows that on eight different occasions a member of the Council abstained in compliance with Art. 27, para. 3.24

After that, an analysis of the relevant practice of the Security Council shows that the provision has been prominent for its non-application. The last few and controversial instances in which the matter of its application was raised during the debates date back to the period between 1960 and 1982. …

In the period between 1952 and 1990, Blum identifies 16 clear instances of non-compliance with the rule. …

In the Post Cold War period, the obligatory abstention rule has been raised in a concrete case only once….

[165] Article: “In Hindsight: Obligatory Abstentions.” Security Council Report Monthly Forecast, April 2014. <www.securitycouncilreport.org>

Article 27(3) of the UN Charter not only enshrines the veto power of permanent members, but also institutes a limitation of this power through the principle of obligatory abstentions. In providing that “in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”, the Charter seeks to ensure that a Council member “should not be allowed to be party, judge and jury at the same time” (S/PV.4753).

Although obligatory abstentions are a compromise, slightly tempering the scope of the veto, they apply in equal measure to permanent and non-permanent members: any member of the Security Council may be required to abstain from voting on a decision on which it is a party to the dispute. This, however, only applies under all of the following conditions: the decision to be voted is not procedural; the decision falls under Chapter VI or Article 52 (3); there is a dispute; and a Council member is a party to the dispute. Obligatory abstentions do not affect the veto of Chapter VII decisions.

The practice of the Security Council, and its members, in terms of raising and complying with Article 27(3) abstentions, has been inconsistent since 1946, and basically inexistent since 17 April 2000, the last time the issue was raised by a member state to no effect in the Council (S/PV.4128). With the exception of the UK in 1947, permanent members have never shown an interest in raising the matter, and non-permanent members have only done so sporadically. …

Obligatory abstentions are rare. There have been only six Council members that have abstained from voting in the Council, or else cast an abstention, explicitly or implicitly acknowledging Article 27(3). …

[T]he last Article 27(3) abstention dates back to 23 June 1960, and the most recent reference to the spirit of the provision in a Council meeting dates back to 13 May 2003 (S/PV.4753)…. In practical terms, disregard by parties to a dispute that are non-permanent members has limited effects, as the adoption of a decision cannot be prevented if it enjoys nine affirmative votes. In the case of permanent members, however, if the other Council members forego Article 27(3) when applicable, nothing stands in the way of the permanent member to veto a decision under Chapter VI on a dispute to which it is a party.

[166] Webpage: “The Security Council.” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

[167] Webpage: “What is the Security Council?” United Nations Security Council. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council’s first action is usually to recommend that the parties try to reach agreement by peaceful means. The Council may:

• undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases;

• dispatch a mission;

• appoint special envoys; or

• request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to achieve a pacific settlement of the dispute.

When a dispute leads to hostilities, the Council’s primary concern is to bring them to an end as soon as possible. In that case, the Council may:

• issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict;

• dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce tensions, separate opposing forces and establish a calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought.

Beyond this, the Council may opt for enforcement measures, including:

• economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and restrictions, and travel bans;

• severance of diplomatic relations;

• blockade;

• or even collective military action.

[168] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 25

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

[169] Report: “UN Sanctions.” Security Council Report, November 25, 2013. <www.securitycouncilreport.org>

Page 13: “Another important factor affecting the implementation of sanctions regimes is the role played by neighbouring states and regional organisations. UN member states have the primary obligation to enforce UN sanctions. This requires two basic components—state capacity and political will—and implementation typically fails in the absence of either.”

[170] Book: Economic Sanctions: Panacea or Peacebuilding in a Post-Cold War World? Edited by David Cortright and George A. Lopez. Westview Press, 1995. Chapter 2: “The United Nations Experience with Sanctions.” By James C. Ngobi. Pages 17–28.

Page 21:

The Security Council has consistently declared or implied that the responsibility for implementing the sanctions it establishes lies with states…. This position probably springs from the realization that acts violating sanctions will be committed in the jurisdiction of some state, which must then investigate and/or prevent the act and deal with the guilty parties….

Pages 23–24:

[E]xclusive reliance on states for imposing sanctions means that the Security Council committees do not have an independent external mechanism to implement sanctions or to verify that the investigations undertaken by governments are sufficient and conclusive. …

Fourth, there should be measures to punish the offenders who continue to trade with a sanctioned country. … If it is found that the countries in which such companies or individuals reside are not exercising sufficient control or restraint on their national entities, a threat of secondary sanctions against such countries would likely yield amazing results in the field of compliance.

[171] Book: Targeted Sanctions: The Impacts and Effectiveness of United Nations Action. Edited by Thomas J. Biersteker, Sue E. Eckhert, and Marco Tourinho. Cambridge University Press, March 2016. <doi.org>

Page 386:

Appendix 4 – Targeted Sanctions Consortium (TSC) Participants

The project has been co-directed by Professor Thomas J. Biersteker, Gasteyger Professor of International Security and Director of the Programme for the Study of International Governance at the Graduate Institute, Geneva … and the Honorable Sue E. Eckert, Senior Fellow, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University….

[172] Report: “The Effectiveness of United Nations Targeted Sanctions.” Targeted Sanctions Consortium, November 2013. <repository.graduateinstitute.ch>

Page 1: “The Graduate Institute Geneva … Programme for the Study of International Governance … Watson Institute for International Studies: Brown University”

Page 3:

The TSC [Targeted Sanctions Consortium] is composed of more than fifty scholars and policy practitioners worldwide who are conducting the first comprehensive, systematic, and comparative assessment of the design and effectiveness of UN targeted sanctions over the past twenty-two years. The purpose of this policy-engaged research is both to enhance the quality of public knowledge and discourse about this important instrument of global governance and to contribute to improved policy analysis and use of targeted sanctions. The TSC was first convened in 2009 and has been engaged in research and periodic policy briefings since that time. …

The objective of the TSC from the outset has been to develop a sound empirical basis for evaluating the design and effectiveness of UN targeted sanctions.

Page 9: “During the research phase, research teams … conducted original research, utilizing a common research framework for analyses of all 22 UN targeted sanctions regimes imposed since 1990….”

Page 18:

Sanctions are prohibition norms that create powerful incentives for evasion, and there is evidence of evasion or coping strategies in over 90% of the cases of UN targeted sanctions. Targets of sanctions commonly devise means of evading the measures, from employing black market contractors (who charge a premium for their services) to using safe havens, disguises of identity, or front companies. At the same time, targets are likely to explore a variety of adjustment strategies to cope with the impacts of the sanctions. Stockpiling of critical materials is likely if sanctions are threatened in advance, while diverting trade through third countries, diversifying investment partners, and developing new technologies or industries that may be made economic the longer the sanctions remain in place.

[173] Report: “UN Sanctions.” Security Council Report, November 25, 2013. <www.securitycouncilreport.org>

Page 12:

In some ways, sanctions busting seems to have much in common with what is generally understood as transnational organised crime—relying on methods such as the use of front companies, black-market trading, re-flagging and renumbering of cargo ships and cross-border smuggling. On an individual level, possible tactics include relying on personal networks, assuming a false identity or relocating to a state with a government that is allied, corrupt or lacks enforcement capacity.

[174] Report: “The Effectiveness of United Nations Targeted Sanctions.” Targeted Sanctions Consortium, November 2013. <repository.graduateinstitute.ch>

Pages 12–13:

In broad terms, sanctions can have three principal and fundamentally different purposes: to coerce a change in target’s behavior; to constrain a target from engaging in a proscribed activity; or to signal and/or stigmatize a target or others about the violation of an international norm.5

Sanctions that attempt to coerce seek to make targets fulfill (in part or completely) specific demands made in a UN Security Council Resolution. Constraining sanctions attempt to deny a target access to essential resources needed to engage in a proscribed activity (e.g. financing, technical knowledge, material), raising its costs or forcing it to change its strategy. Signaling and stigmatizing occurs when the deviation from an international norm is clearly articulated and acknowledged by the Security Council and the broader international community. These different purposes may be directed simultaneously to more than one audience, aiming for example at a rebel faction, as well as its key supporters, as well as to domestic constituencies in sanctions sending states.

Page 21:

[W]e find that targeted sanctions are much more effective in constraining or signaling a target than they are in coercing a change in target behavior. They are effective in coercing a change in behavior only 10% of the time. By contrast, they are effective in constraining target behavior (increasing costs and inducing changes in strategy) almost three times as frequently, or 28% of the time. They are nearly as effective in sending signals to target audiences, which they do 27% of the time. Table 2.1 displays the frequency distribution and associated percentages of each category of purpose of targeted sanctions.

[Sanctions Effectiveness Distribution]

[175] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 2

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. …

Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. …

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

[176] Resolution 1556. United Nations Security Council, July 30, 2004. <unscr.com>

The Security Council …

Reiterating its grave concern at the ongoing humanitarian crisis and widespread human rights violations, including continued attacks on civilians that are placing the lives of hundreds of thousands at risk,

Condemning all acts of violence and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by all parties to the crisis, in particular by the Janjaweed, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, rapes, forced displacements, and acts of violence especially those with an ethnic dimension, and expressing its utmost concern at the consequences of the conflict in Darfur on the civilian population, including women, children, internally displaced persons, and refugees,

Recalling in this regard that the Government of Sudan bears the primary responsibility to respect human rights while maintaining law and order and protecting its population within its territory and that all parties are obliged to respect international humanitarian law,

Urging all the parties to take the necessary steps to prevent and put an end to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and underlining that there will be no impunity for violators,

Welcoming the commitment by the Government of Sudan to investigate the atrocities and prosecute those responsible …

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations …

Decides that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent the sale or supply, to all non-governmental entities and individuals, including the Janjaweed, operating in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories;

Decides that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent any provision to the non-governmental entities and individuals identified in paragraph 7 operating in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur by their nationals or from their territories of technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in paragraph 7 above….

[177] Resolution 1591. United Nations Security Council, March 29, 2005. <unscr.com>

The Security Council …

Strongly condemning all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Darfur region, in particular the continuation of violence against civilians and sexual violence against women and girls since the adoption of resolution 1574 (2004), urging all parties to take necessary steps to prevent further violations, and expressing its determination to ensure that those responsible for all such violations are identified and brought to justice without delay …

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations … condemns … the failure of the Government of Sudan to disarm Janjaweed militiamen and apprehend and bring to justice Janajaweed leaders and their associates who have carried out human rights and international humanitarian law violations and other atrocities …

Decides, in light of the failure of all parties to the conflict in Darfur to fulfil their commitments …

(c) that those individuals … who … commit violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or other atrocities … shall be subject to the measures identified in subparagraphs (d) and (e) below …

(d) that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent entry into or transit through their territories of all persons as designated by the Committee pursuant to subparagraph (c) above …

(e) that all States shall freeze all funds, financial assets and economic resources … that are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the persons designated by the Committee pursuant to subparagraph (c) above …

Reaffirms the measures imposed by … resolution 1556 (2004), and decides that these measures shall immediately upon adoption of this resolution, also apply to all the parties to the N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement and any other belligerents in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur….

[178] Article: “Sudan.” By Robert O. Collins and others. Encyclopedia Britannica, January 25, 1999. Updated 1/10/19. <www.britannica.com>

“From 1955 until 1972 there prevailed a costly and divisive civil war…. The Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 ended the conflict only temporarily, and in 1983 the civil war resumed. … Attempts to end the civil war included numerous discussions, cease-fires, and agreements but yielded very little success until 2005, when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement ended the warfare.”

[179] Resolution 1970. United Nations Security Council, February 26, 2011. <undocs.org>

The Security Council …

Deploring the gross and systematic violation of human rights …

Recalling the Libyan authorities’ responsibility to protect its population …

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and taking measures under its Article 41 …

Decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya … of arms and related material of all types, …

Decides that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya shall cease the export of all arms and related material, …

Decides to authorize all Member States to, and that all Member States shall, upon discovery of items prohibited … seize and dispose … items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by … this resolution; …

Decides that all Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals listed in Annex I of this resolution …

Decides that all Member States shall freeze without delay all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the individuals or entities listed in annex II of this resolution….

[180] Resolution 1973. United Nations Security Council, March 17, 2011. <undocs.org>

The Security Council …

Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians, condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, …

Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities …

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations …

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi….

[181] Article: “Libya Crisis ‘Festering,’ UN Envoy Warns, Urging Decisive Action to Build National Unity.” United Nations UN News, March 4, 2015. <news.un.org>

“The latest wave of violence has further rattled the war-weary nation, in conflict since the beginning of its civil war in 2011, which resulted in the ouster of late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.”

[182] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Article 1

The purposes of the United Nations are:

1 To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace …

Article 2

1 The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. …

5 All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventative or enforcement action. …

7 Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Chapter V: The Security Council

Article 24

1 In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

2 In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII. …

Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. …

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

[183] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed October 23, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 43

1 All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2 Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3 The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

[184] Webpage: “Actions with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Chapter VII).” United Nations Security Council. Accessed December 3, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 43 – Member States’ Obligation to Offer Assistance in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security

The obligation for United Nations members to undertake to make armed forces available to the Security Council, render assistance and accord relief as necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security exists only in accordance with one or more special agreements. Nevertheless, such agreements were never concluded and no State is obligated to make troops available to the Council in a particular situation. Consequently, the United Nations has to enter into negotiations every time a situation calls for the establishment of an operation.

[185] Textbook: Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (8th edition). By Alexander Orakhelashvili. Routledge, 2019.

Page 514:

Article 42 provides that, if Article 41 measures “would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate,” the Council “may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea or land forces of Members of the United Nations.” In practice, the Security Council tends to refer only to Chapter VII as such and not to specific Articles.

The initially envisaged arrangement was made under Article 43, which provided that all members of the UN would make armed forces available to the Council, and conclude respective agreements with it. This never materialised, and the Military Staff Committee established under Article 47 does not yield any real authority in the Chapter VII affairs. Nevertheless, Article 43 describes a manner in which the Security Council may act, but it does not prevent the Security Council from choosing an alternative procedure. The alternative worked out in practice has been that the Security Council can authorise States to use force, if the conditions of Articles 39 and 42 are met.

[186] Paper: “Is the Authorization Authorized? Powers and Practice of the UN Security Council to Authorize the Use of Force by ‘Coalitions of the Able and Willing.’ ” By Niels Blokker. European Journal of International Law, 2000. Pages 541–568. <www.ejil.org>

Pages 542–543:

This article will focus on … the widespread use made of resolutions of the Security Council which authorize member states to use force in particular cases. These resolutions have become the primary instrument through which the Security Council has acted if the use of military force was considered necessary. This practice is likely to continue in the future.

… It is true that under Article 42, a power is given to the Security Council to take enforcement action. However, as can be concluded from the travaux preparatoires and from the Charter system, the only explicit power given to the Council under this provision is a power to undertake such action by its own forces to be made available by the members in accordance with Article 43.2 When no such forces were made available to the Council, the question arose whether this gap could be filled by implying powers such as the power to use forces that are not its own and therefore escape its full control.

Such delegated enforcement action has been considered a “half-way house” between the unilateral recourse to force by states and collective security as laid down in the Charter.3

[187] Webpage: “What is the Security Council?” United Nations Security Council. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

When a dispute leads to hostilities, the Council’s primary concern is to bring them to an end as soon as possible. In that case, the Council may:

• issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict;

• dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce tensions, separate opposing forces and establish a calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought.

[188] Textbook: Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (8th edition). By Alexander Orakhelashvili. Routledge, 2019.

Page 504: “The function of the UN in the area of peace and security can be classified into three broad categories. … The third category deals with the UN peacekeeping operations which have no explicit legal bases in the Charter, but have developed in practice.”

Page 529:

UN peacekeeping operations83 have traditionally been distinguished from “enforcement action” under Chapter VII, because they have always been based upon the consent of the conflicting parties to the deployment of peacekeeping troops and military observers under the auspices of the UN. The distinction between the enforcement action and peacekeeping is, however, not that strict. Peacekeeping operations can also be arranged and undertaken within the enforcement context of Chapter VII.

[189] Paper: “The United States and the United Nations in the Persian Gulf War: New Order or Disorder.” By John Quigley. Cornell International Law Journal, 1992. Pages 1–49. <scholarship.law.cornell.edu>

Page 25: “Although the Charter basis for peace-keeping operations is unclear,145 they violate the rights of no state since they are taken with the consent of the host state and are directed against no state.146

[190] Webpage: “Principles of Peacekeeping.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 6, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

There are three basic principles that continue to set UN peacekeeping operations apart as a tool for maintaining international peace and security. …

1. Consent of the Parties

UN peacekeeping operations are deployed with the consent of the main parties to the conflict. … In the absence of such consent, a peacekeeping operation risks becoming a party to the conflict; and being drawn towards enforcement action, and away from its fundamental role of keeping the peace. …

2. Impartiality

3. Non-Use of Force Except in Self-Defence and Defence of the Mandate

UN peacekeeping operations are not an enforcement tool. However, they may use force at the tactical level, with the authorization of the Security Council, if acting in self-defence and defence of the mandate.

In certain volatile situations, the Security Council has given UN peacekeeping operations “robust” mandates authorizing them to “use all necessary means” to deter forceful attempts to disrupt the political process, protect civilians under imminent threat of physical attack, and/or assist the national authorities in maintaining law and order.

Although on the ground they may sometimes appear similar, robust peacekeeping should not be confused with peace enforcement, as envisaged under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

• Robust peacekeeping involves the use of force at the tactical level with the authorization of the Security Council and consent of the host nation and/or the main parties to the conflict.

• By contrast, peace enforcement does not require the consent of the main parties and may involve the use of military force at the strategic or international level, which is normally prohibited for Member States under Article 2(4) of the Charter, unless authorized by the Security Council.

A UN peacekeeping operation should only use force as a measure of last resort.

[191] Webpage: “Role of the Security Council.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 5, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

It is for the Security Council to determine when and where a UN Peacekeeping operation should be deployed. … The Security Council establishes a peacekeeping operation by adopting a Security Council resolution. The resolution sets out that mission’s mandate and size. The Security Council monitors the work of UN Peacekeeping operations on an ongoing basis, including through periodic reports from the Secretary-General and by holding dedicated Security Council sessions to discuss the work of specific operations.

The Security Council can vote to extend, amend or end mission mandates as it deems appropriate.

[192] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 27

1 Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2 Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3 Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

[193] Webpage: “Current Members.” United Nations Security Council. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Council is composed of 15 Members:

• five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,

• and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly….

[194] Webpage: “Military.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 6, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

All military personnel working under the Blue Helmet are first and foremost members of their own national armies and are then seconded to work under the command and control of the UN. …

It takes considerable time to deploy troops and we are often asked why we do not have a standing reserve.

The UN can only deploy military personnel when there is a UN Security Council resolution authorizing them to do so. The Security Council will say how many military personnel are required, and UN Headquarters will liaise with the Member States to identify personnel and deploy them. This can take time—often more than six months from the date of the resolution to get boots and equipment on the ground.

[195] Webpage: “Forming a New Operation.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 5, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

“The UN has no standing army or police force of its own, and Member States are asked to contribute military and police personnel required for each operation. Peacekeepers wear their countries’ uniform and are identified as UN Peacekeepers only by a UN blue helmet or beret and a badge.”

[196] Paper: “UN Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era.” By Muzaffer Ercan Yilmaz. International Journal on World Peace, June 2005. Pages 13–28. <www.jstor.org>

Pages 15–16:

Until the collapse of communism in the late 1980s, there were only 13 UN peacekeeping operations, most of which concerned conflicts that had arisen after European de-colonization. Many other issues, particularly East–West conflicts, on the other hand, were dealt with outside the UN due to the lack of cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union.

As they evolved from the 1950s to the 1980s, the traditional tasks of UN peacekeeping operations included interposing between conflicting parties and monitoring cease-fires. …

The principle of non-force was especially central to UN peacekeeping for many years, In fact, more than half of the UN peacekeeping operations before 1988 had consisted only of unarmed military observers and no counting situational exceptions, force was used only in cases of self-defense (Liu, 1992).

Pages 16–17: “From 1948 to 1978, only a total of 13 peacekeeping forces were set up, and in the following ten-year period, no new forces were established. … For instance, from 1945 to 1990 the permanent members of the Security Council cast the following number of vetoes: China, 3; France, 18; United Kingdom, 30; US, 60; and the Soviet Union, 114.”

[197] Webpage: “Peace and Security.” United Nations. Accessed November 6, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“Born at the time when Cold War rivalries frequently paralyzed the Security Council, UN peacekeeping goals were primarily limited to maintaining ceasefires and stabilizing situations on the ground, so that efforts could be made at the political level to resolve the conflict by peaceful means.”

[198] “Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations.” United Nations, General Assembly, August 21, 2000. <undocs.org>

Page 3:

Until the end of the cold war, United Nations peacekeeping operations mostly had traditional ceasefire-monitoring mandates and no direct peacebuilding responsibilities. The “entry strategy” or sequence of events and decisions leading to United Nations deployment was straightforward: war, ceasefire, invitation to monitor ceasefire compliance and deployment of military observers or units to do so, while efforts continued for a political settlement.

[199] Paper: “From Cold War to a System of Peacekeeping Operations: The Discussions on Peacekeeping Operations in the UN During the 1980s Up to 1992.” By Chen Kertcher. Journal of Contemporary History, July 2012. <www.jstor.org>

Page 614:

During the 1980s the organization was relatively negligible in world politics. In that decade the Security Council was able to decide on approximately 18 resolutions a year, most of them dealing with Israel. …

The grim international horizon which affected the UN’s ability to influence world security during the 1980s was even harsher concerning peacekeeping operations. The Soviet bloc refused to cooperate with peacekeeping operations and the USSR had a large debt to the organization. … During most of the 1980s there were only five UN peacekeeping operations in the world and their contribution to solving conflicts was in dispute.

Page 615: “[I]n the autobiography of the retired UN Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs Brian Urquhart … he ‘felt that only an invasion from outer space would be a sufficiently non-controversial disaster to bring the Council back to the great power unanimity that the UN Charter required in order to make the UN effective.’

[200] Webpage: “UNTSO Fact Sheet.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed December 4, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

United Nations Truce Supervision Organization

Location: Middle East

Headquarters: Government House, Jerusalem

Established: May 1948 …

Helping to Bring Stability in the Middle East

Set up in May 1948, UNTSO was the first ever peacekeeping operation established by the United Nations. Since then, UNTSO military observers have remained in the Middle East to monitor ceasefires, supervise armistice agreements, prevent isolated incidents from escalating and assist other UN peacekeeping operations in the region to fulfil their respective mandates. …

Deployed Number of Personnel as of September 2018

(Civilian data as of May 2018)

376 Total personnel

222 Civilians

154 Experts on Mission

[201] Webpage: “UNMOGIP Fact Sheet.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed December 4, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan

Location: India and Pakistan

Headquarters: (November to April) and Srinagar (May to October)

Established: January 1949 …

Observing the Ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir

The first group of United Nations military observers arrived in the mission area on 24 January of 1949 to supervise the ceasefire between India and Pakistan in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. These observers, under the command of the Military Adviser appointed by the UN Secretary-General, formed the nucleus of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP).

Following renewed hostilities of 1971, UNMOGIP has remained in the area to observe developments pertaining to the strict observance of the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 and report thereon to the Secretary-General. …

Deployed Number of Personnel as of October 2018

(Civilian data as of May 2018)

114 Total personnel

72 Civilians

42 Experts on Mission

[202] Webpage: “Our History.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 5, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

“After the Cold War ended, there was a rapid increase in the number of peacekeeping operations. With a new consensus and a common sense of purpose, the Security Council authorized a total of 20 new operations between 1989 and 1994, raising the number of peacekeepers from 11,000 to 75,000.”

[203] Paper: “UN Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era.” By Muzaffer Ercan Yilmaz. International Journal on World Peace, June 2005. Pages 13–28. <www.jstor.org>

Page 18:

Apart from the numerical increase in peacekeeping forces, since the end of the Cold War UN peacekeeping operations have also involved a great number of activities that have been either totally new or implemented on a much larger scale than before, such as:

• Monitoring and even running local elections, as in Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, the Congo, and East Timor.

• Protecting certain areas as “safe areas” from adversary attacks so that people feel secure at least in these areas.

• Guarding the weapons surrendered by or taken from the parties in conflict.

• Ensuring the smooth delivery of humanitarian relief supplies during an ongoing conflict, as typically the case in Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia, and Sudan.

• Assisting in the reconstruction of state function in war-torn societies, as in Bosnia Herzegovina, El Salvador, the Congo, East Timor, and Liberia (Eide, 2001; Berdal, 2003).

[204] Webpage: “Our History.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 5, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

With the end of the Cold War, the strategic context for UN Peacekeeping changed dramatically.

The UN shifted and expanded its field operations from “traditional” missions involving generally observational tasks performed by military personnel to complex “multidimensional” enterprises. These multidimensional missions were designed to ensure the implementation of comprehensive peace agreements and assist in laying the foundations for sustainable peace. …

UN Peacekeepers were now increasingly asked to undertake a wide variety of complex tasks, from helping to build sustainable institutions of governance, to human rights monitoring, to security sector reform, to the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants. …

The general success of earlier missions raised expectations for UN Peacekeeping beyond its capacity to deliver. This was especially true in the mid 1990’s in situations when the Security Council was not able to authorize sufficiently robust mandates or provide adequate resources.

[205] Article: “Rwanda Genocide of 1994.” By Amy McKenna. Encyclopedia Britannica, March 25, 2011. <www.britannica.com>

Rwanda genocide of 1994, planned campaign of mass murder in Rwanda that occurred over the course of some 100 days in April–July 1994. The genocide was conceived by extremist elements of Rwanda’s majority Hutu population who planned to kill the minority Tutsi population and anyone who opposed those genocidal intentions. It is estimated that some 200,000 Hutu, spurred on by propaganda from various media outlets, participated in the genocide. More than 800,000 civilians—primarily Tutsi, but also moderate Hutu—were killed during the campaign. As many as 2,000,000 Rwandans fled the country during or immediately after the genocide. …

On the evening of April 6, 1994, a plane carrying [Rwandan President] Habyarimana and Burundian Pres. Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down over Kigali; the ensuing crash killed everyone on board. … The organized killing of Tutsi and moderate Hutu began that night, led by Hutu extremists. Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, a moderate Hutu, was assassinated the next day, as were 10 Belgian soldiers (part of a United Nations peacekeeping force already in the country) who were guarding her. Her murder was part of a campaign to eliminate moderate Hutu or Tutsi politicians, with the goal of creating a political vacuum and thus allowing for the formation of an interim government of Hutu extremists assembled by Col. Théoneste Bagosora, who later would be identified as having played a significant role in organizing the genocide. The speaker of the National Development Council (Rwanda’s legislative body at the time), Theodore Sindikubwabo, became interim president on April 8, and the interim government was inaugurated on April 9.

The next few months saw a wave of anarchy and mass killings, in which the army and Hutu militia groups known as the Interahamwe (“Those Who Attack Together”) and Impuzamugambi (“Those Who Have the Same Goal”) played a central role. Radio broadcasts further fueled the genocide by encouraging Hutu civilians to kill their Tutsi neighbours, who were referred to as “cockroaches” who needed to be exterminated. It is estimated that some 200,000 Hutu participated in the genocide, although some were unwilling and consequently were forced to do so by the army and Hutu militia groups.

[206] Paper: “Explaining the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.” By Helen M. Hintjens. Journal of Modern African Studies, 1999. Pages 241–284. <pdfs.semanticscholar.org>

Page 244:

[T]he genocide took place under the aegis of the Rwandan state, and Rwandan subjects and citizens were the main actors in the genocide (Mamdani 1996). A range of public and private institutions were responsible for the critical task of planning the genocide in advance, and for ensuring its subsequent implementation through the participation of most Rwandan people, resulting in the victimisation of a significant minority.

Pages 246–247:

The 1994 killings were a genocide precisely because they were planned well before April 1994, with predictions of the mass killings that were to take place being made months, and even years, before they actually occurred. Certainly, by January 1994, it was clear to the UN’s special envoy for human rights that death lists were being drawn up in preparation for the killing of Batutsi, and the elimination of Bahutu opposition politicians and human rights activists (FIDH 1993: 4; Reyntjens 1995: 59). From 1992 onwards, members of “Hutu power” militias were being trained in techniques of hunt and destroy operations, rather than in open armed combat. The regime in power in Rwanda during the early 1990s, along with its regional and international allies, was fully responsible for the genocide of 1994.

[207] “Report of the Independent Inquiry Into the Actions of the United Nations During the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.” United Nations Security Council, December 15, 1999. <www.un.org>

Page 3:

The failure by the United Nations to prevent, and subsequently, to stop the genocide in Rwanda was a failure by the United Nations system as a whole. The fundamental failure was the lack of resources and political commitment devoted to developments in Rwanda and to the United Nations presence there. There was a persistent lack of political will by Member States to act, or to act with enough assertiveness. This lack of political will affected the response by the Secretariat and decision-making by the Security Council, but was also evident in the recurrent difficulties to get the necessary troops for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR). Finally, although UNAMIR suffered from a chronic lack of resources and political priority, it must also be said that serious mistake were made with those resources which were at the disposal of the United Nations.

Page 9:

On 23 November 1993, Dallaire sent Headquarters a draft set of Rules of Engagement … specifically allowing the mission to act, and even to use force, in response to crimes against humanity and other abuses (“There may also be ethnically or politically motivated criminal acts committed during this mandate which will morally and legally require UNAMIR to use all available means to halt them. …) Headquarters never responded formally to the Force Commander’s request for approval.

Page 11: “The cable from Headquarters ended with the pointed statement that ‘the overriding consideration is the need to avoid entering into a course of action that might lead to the use of force and unanticipated repercussions.’

Page 33:

[I]t is incomprehensible to the Inquiry that not more was done to follow up on the information provided by the informant. …

… Information that received by a United Nations mission that plans are being made to exterminate any group of people requires an immediate and determined response, in this case certainly action more forceful than the meetings which were held….

The information on the existence of arms caches was also serious. While the quantity of arms in that particular cache … was not a magnitude or a nature to determine the outcome of the genocide later that year, the instructions from New York certainly gave the signal to the … extremists that UNAMIR was not going to take assertive action to deal with such caches.

Page 34:

The concern expressed by the leadership of UNAMIR throughout January and February about the consequences of the arms distribution is very clear. Given that Headquarters had determined that raiding the arms caches … was not within the scope of the mandate, the Inquiry feels that this issue should have been raised with the Security Council as a fundamental weakness in the mandate of the mission….

Page 35: “When the genocide began, the weaknesses of UNAMIR’s mandate became devastatingly clear. … The mission was under rules of engagement not to use force except in self-defence. … Civilians were drawn to UNAMIR posts but the mission proved incapable of sustaining protection of them.”

Page 45:

The role of UNAMIR in the protection of civilians during the genocide is one of the most debated and painful issues of this period. Considerable efforts were made by members of UNAMIR, sometimes at risk to themselves, to provide protection to civilians at risk during the massacres. However, there do not seem to have been conscious and consistent orders down the chain of command on this issue. During the early days of the genocide, thousands of civilians congregated in places where UN troops were stationed…. And when UNAMIR later came to withdraw from areas under its protection, civilians were placed at risk. Tragically, there is evidence that in certain instances, the trust placed in UNAMIR by civilians left them in a situation of greater risk when the UN troops withdrew than they would have been otherwise.

Page 50:

The fact that Rwanda, represented by the Habyarimana government, was a member of the Security Council from January 1994 was a problem in the Security Council’s handling of the Rwanda issue. In effect, one of the parties to the Arusha Peace Agreement had full access to the discussions of the Council and had the opportunity to try to influence decision-making in the Council on its own behalf. That a party to a conflict on the agenda of the Council, which was the host country of a peacekeeping operation, later subject to an arms embargo imposed by the body of which it was a member, shows the damaging effect of Rwanda’s membership on the Council.

The damage was evident in the actions of the Rwandan representatives on the Security Council during this period. Both Secretariat officials and representatives of Members of the Council at the time have told the Inquiry that the Rwandan presence hampered the quality of the information that the Secretariat felt it possible to provide to the Council and the nature of the discussion in that body.

[208] Entry: “Bosnian Conflict.” By John R. Lampe. Encyclopedia Britannica, March 24, 2009. <www.britannica.com>

The United Nations (UN) refused to intervene in the Bosnian conflict, but UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) troops did facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid. The organization later extended its role to the protection of a number of UN-declared “safe areas.” However, the UN failed to protect the safe area of Srebrenica in July 1995, when Bosnian Serb forces perpetrated the massacre of more than 7,000 Bosniak men.

[209] Entry: “Srebrenica Massacre.” By R. Jeffrey Smith. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 7, 2010. Last updated 11/22/17. <www.britannica.com>

Srebrenica massacre, slaying of more than 7,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) boys and men, perpetrated by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica, a town in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, in July 1995. In addition to the killings, more than 20,000 civilians were expelled from the area—a process known as ethnic cleansing. …

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia … pinned principal responsibility on senior officers in the Bosnian Serb army. But the United Nations (UN) and its Western supporters also accepted a portion of the blame for having failed to protect the Bosniak men, women, and children in Srebrenica, which in 1993 the UN Security Council had formally designated a “safe area.” In a critical internal review in 1999, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote, “Through error, misjudgment and an inability to recognize the scope of the evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to help save the people of Srebrenica from the [Bosnian] Serb campaign of mass murder.” …

… Amid chaos and terror, thousands of civilians fled Srebrenica for the nearby village of Potočari, where a contingent of about 200 Dutch peacekeepers was stationed. Some of the Dutch surrendered, while others withdrew; none fired on the advancing Bosnian Serb forces. …

The total number of men and boys who were slaughtered was initially a matter of some debate. … Although not all sources agreed … it was generally accepted that at least 7,000 people were killed, and some estimates placed the toll at more than 8,000. …

In July 2011 a Dutch appeals court ruled that the Netherlands was responsible for the deaths of three Bosniak men who, in July 1995 after Dutch troops forced them out of the UN compound in Potočari, had been killed by Bosnian Serbs. The court’s decision marked the first time that a country had been held liable for the actions of its peacekeeping forces operating under a UN mandate. In July 2014 the Dutch government was found liable by a Dutch court for the deaths of more than 300 Bosniak men and boys at Srebrenica, and … in June 2017 a Dutch appellate court … ruled that the Netherlands should only be held responsible for 30 percent of any financial damages awarded to the families of the slain. The court deemed that there was a 70 percent likelihood that Bosnian Serbs would have seized the refugees regardless of the actions of the Dutch peacekeepers.

[210] Paper: “The Use of Force in a United Nations Peace-Keeping Operation: Lessons Learnt from the Safe Areas Mandate.” By Yasushi Akashi. Fordham International Law Journal, 1995. Pages 312­–323. <ir.lawnet.fordham.edu>

Page 2 (of PDF): “The United Nations Protection Force for the former Yugoslavia (‘UNPROFOR’ or ‘Force’) was established to deter attacks on the safe areas with the use of force, to promote the withdrawal of non-Government forces from the area, and to safeguard the delivery of humanitarian aid.”

Page 317:

For failing to make a clear distinction in Resolution 836 between what UNPROFOR was authorized to do and what it was obliged to do, the Security Council may, in some respects, have contributed to the warring parties’ failure to understand, or fully respect, the safe area concept. The Security Council may also be held partly responsible for the subsequent misconceptions that have arisen over the extent of the use of force UNPROFOR was entitled to employ in implementing its mandates.

[211] Article: “Srebrenica: Dutch State Partly Responsible for 350 Deaths.” BBC, June 27, 2017. <www.bbc.com>

Some 5,000 Bosniaks had sought shelter from Bosnian Serb soldiers in a UN base, which was being defended by the lightly-armed Dutch peacekeepers—known as Dutchbat. Thousands more had sought protection outside the base.

But after the base was overrun, the Muslim men and boys were told by the peacekeepers they would be safe and handed over to the Bosnian Serb army.

In 2014, a Dutch court found the Netherlands liable for the deaths of 350 who had been inside the base, but not those outside. …

The Dutch government has previously acknowledged its failure to protect the refugees, while the Bosnian Serbs were responsible for the killings.

[212] Webpage: “Reforming Peacekeeping.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 6, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

“In March 2000, the Secretary-General appointed the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations to assess the shortcomings of the then existing system and to make specific and realistic recommendations for change.”

[213] “Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations.” United Nations General Assembly, August 21, 2000. <undocs.org>

Page 1:

The United Nations was founded, in the words of its Charter, in order “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Meeting this challenge is the most important function of the Organization, and to a very significant degree it is the yardstick with which the Organization is judged by the peoples it exists to serve. Over the last decade, the United Nations has repeatedly failed to meet the challenge, and it can do no better today. Without renewed commitment on the part of Member States, significant institutional change and increased financial support, the United Nations will not be capable of executing the critical peacekeeping and peacebuilding tasks that the Member States assign to it in coming months and years.

[214] Webpage: “ ‘Brahimi Report’: Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (2000).” United Nations. Accessed November 6, 2018 at <www.un.org>

After publishing two reports in 1999 which highlighted the United Nations failure to prevent genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and to protect the inhabitants of Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1995, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations. He asked the Panel to assess the shortcomings of the then existing peace operations system and to make specific and realistic recommendations for change. The panel was composed of individuals experienced in conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacebuilding.

[215] “Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations.” United Nations, General Assembly, August 21, 2000. <undocs.org>

Page 10:

As a political body, the Security Council focuses on consensus-building, even though it can take decisions with less than unanimity. But the compromises required to build consensus can be made at the expense of specificity, and the resulting ambiguity can have serious consequences in the field if the mandate is then subject to varying interpretation by different elements of a peace operation, or if local actors perceive a less than complete Council commitment to peace implementation that offers encouragement to spoilers. Ambiguity may also paper over differences that emerge later, under pressure of a crisis, to prevent urgent Council action. While it acknowledges the utility of political compromise in many cases, the Panel comes down in this case on the side of clarity, especially for operations that will deploy into dangerous circumstances. Rather than send an operation into danger with unclear instructions, the Panel urges that the Council refrain from mandating such a mission.

Page 17: “The absence of detailed statistics on responses notwithstanding, many Member States are saying ‘no’ to deploying formed military units to United Nations-led peacekeeping operations, far more often than they are saying ‘yes.’

Page 18:

[T]he Secretary-General finds himself in an untenable position. He is given a Security Council resolution specifying troop levels on paper, but without knowing whether he will be given the troops to put on the ground. The troops that eventually arrive in theatre may still be underequipped: Some countries have provided soldiers without rifles, or with rifles but no helmets, or with helmets but no flak jackets, or with no organic transport capability (trucks or troops carriers). Troops may be untrained in peacekeeping operations, and in any case the various contingents in an operation are unlikely to have trained or worked together before. Some units may have no personnel who can speak the mission language. Even if language is not a problem, they may lack common operating procedures and have differing interpretations of key elements of command and control and of the mission’s rules of engagement, and may have differing expectations about mission requirements for the use of force.

[216] Speech: “Secretary-General’s Remarks to Security Council High-Level Debate on Collective Action to Improve UN Peacekeeping Operations.” United Nations, Office of the Secretary-General, March 28, 2018. <www.un.org>

Put simply, peace operations cannot succeed if they are deployed instead of a political solution, rather than in support of one. … UN peacekeepers are often under-equipped, under-prepared and unready for the dangerous environments in which they now operate. …

We are damaging the instrument of peacekeeping, and indeed multilateralism itself, in creating unrealistic expectations. Lives and credibility are being lost. These challenges require strong, collective action. We should focus our efforts in three areas: First, to refocus peacekeeping with realistic expectations; Second, to make peacekeeping missions stronger and safer; And, third, to mobilize greater support for political solutions and for well-structured, well-equipped, well-trained forces. …

First, we are working to improve the safety and security of peacekeepers. We have already started to implement measures to improve the preparedness and response of missions at high risk by strengthening training, reviewing medical support, and addressing performance issues. Second, we are conducting independent reviews of our peacekeeping missions, aimed at refining their priorities and configuration, while assessing the viability of mandates and political processes. …

We urgently need a quantum leap in collective engagement. This is why I am launching a new initiative, “Action for Peacekeeping,” aimed at mobilizing all partners and stakeholders to support the great enterprise of United Nations peacekeeping. …

As we build this agreement together, I have six immediate requests for Member States. First, I urge Security Council members to sharpen and streamline mandates. Please put an end to mandates that look like Christmas trees. Christmas is over, and the United Nations Mission in South Sudan cannot possibly implement 209 mandated tasks. By attempting too much, we dilute our efforts and weaken our impact. I hope our mission reviews will help to end this mandate inflation. Second, I call on Member States to sustain your political engagement and push for political solutions and inclusive peace processes, including through bilateral diplomacy and sanctions if necessary. A peacekeeping operation is not an army, or a counter-terrorist force, or a humanitarian agency. It is a tool to create the space for a nationally-owned political solution.

[217] Webpage: “Peacekeeping Reform.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed December 4, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

Political decisions are often lacking, and mission mandates do not appear to include specific goals and clear priorities. Comprehensive threats in a number of situations lead to an increase in the number of dead and wounded peacekeepers, while missions sometimes lack the personnel and technical means to deal with such threats. When conducting peacekeeping operations, one also faces challenges in the implementation of protection mandates.

Desiring to solve these problems, the Secretary-General launched the Peacekeeping Action Initiative (A4P) in order to renew mutual political commitments in peacekeeping operations. The Secretary-General called upon Member States to work with him to develop a set of mutually agreed principles and commitments for organizing peace operations that would meet the requirements of the future, with a view to reaching a formal agreement by the end of 2018.

[218] Webpage: “Who Is and Has Been Secretary-General of the United Nations?” United Nations, Dag Hammarskjold Library. Accessed December 4, 2018 at <ask.un.org>

António Guterres is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations. He is the ninth Secretary-General, his term began 1 January 2017.”

[219] Webpage: “Data.” United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed November 5, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

Global Peacekeeping Data (as of 30 September 2018)

Total number of personnel serving in 14 peacekeeping operations: 102,934

Countries contributing uniformed personnel: 124

71 Peacekeeping operations since 1948

14 Current peacekeeping operations

88,729 Uniformed personnel

74,826 Contingent Troops

1,270 Experts on Mission

10,604 Police

2,029 Staff Officers

12,932 Civilian Personnel

1,273 UN Volunteers

* Civilian personnel as of May 2018

[220] Report: “Cost Estimate for Hypothetical U.S. Operation Exceeds Actual Costs for Comparable UN Operation.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 2018. <www.gao.gov>

Page 2 (of PDF):

Based on United Nations (UN) and Departments of Defense (DOD) and State (State) data, GAO estimates that it would cost the United States more than twice as much as it would cost the UN to implement a hypothetical operation comparable to the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). MINUSCA cost the UN approximately $2.4 billion for the first 39 months of the operation. GAO estimates that a hypothetical U.S. peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic of roughly the same size and duration would cost nearly $5.7 billion—almost eight times more than the $700 million the United States contributed to MINUSCA over the same time period.

Page 22: “Because the results of our cost comparison are based on a single case study, they cannot be generalized to all UN peacekeeping operations.”

[221] Report: “A Comprehensive Strategy to Eliminate Future Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.” United Nations General Assembly, March 24, 2005. <undocs.org>

Page 7:

Besides the United Nations, media and human rights organizations in particular have documented the involvement of peacekeeping personnel in sexual exploitation and abuse in operations ranging from those in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo in the early 1990s to Cambodia and Timor-Leste in the early and late 1990s to West Africa in 2002 and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2004.

[222] Paper: “Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Peace Operations: Trends, Policy Responses and Future Directions.” By Jasmine-Kim Westendorf and Louise Searle. International Affairs, March 2017. Pages 365–387. <doi.org>

Page 366:

SEA [sexual exploitation and abuse] first emerged as a peacekeeping issue during the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) in 1993, when the number of prostitutes in Cambodia rose from 6,000 before the mission to more than 25,000 in 1993. The widespread use of prostitutes involved violence and the sexual abuse of girls, with women reporting that “UNTAC customers could be more cruel” than Cambodians.5 The UN response was threefold: the head of mission dismissed the issue’s significance, declaring that “boys will be boys”;6 mission leadership advised peacekeepers not to wear uniforms when visiting brothels or park UN vehicles directly outside; and an additional 800,000 condoms were shipped to the country to prevent the spread of HIV.7

6 Judy Ledgerwood, “UN Peacekeeping Missions: The Lessons From Cambodia,” AsiaPacific Issues No. 11 (Honolulu: EastWest Center, 1994), <www.seasite.niu.edu>.

Page 367:

In 1995, the issue of peacekeeper SEA arose again, this time in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where evidence emerged that women and girls were being trafficked to work as sex slaves in brothels frequented by UN personnel, and later, that interveners were complicit in sex trafficking. However, it was not until 1999 that negative media and rising public attention prompted the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to develop policy responses—which suggests a reluctance “to recognise the direct and indirect involvement of peacekeepers in trafficking.”8 Once under way, the UN response adopted a more limited definition of trafficking than that set out under international law, and failed to provide adequate victim protection.

Shortly thereafter, independent consultants raised the alarm that UN and NGO staff were abusing and exploiting local women and girls in refugee camps in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. A subsequent Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) investigation in 2001 verified that SEA was prevalent, documenting the sexual relationship between a UN civilian staff member and a 17-year-old refugee in exchange for school fees, the violent rape of girls by NGO staff, the rape of boys by peacekeepers in Sierra Leone, the exchange of sex for food provided by NGO staff, and the refusal of international staff to take responsibility for children fathered with local women.9

[223] Article: “Haiti: Over 100 Sri Lankan Blue Helmets Repatriated on Disciplinary Grounds.” United Nations, UN News, November 2, 2007. <news.un.org>

The United Nations today announced that it will repatriate more than 100 Sri Lankan peacekeepers serving with the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) on disciplinary grounds.

Out of a total of 950 members of the Sri Lankan battalion (SriBat), 108 will be repatriated tomorrow, 3 November, with the cooperation of Sri Lankan authorities and following the receipt of a preliminary report by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).

The move comes in response to allegations which are “of a transactional sex nature,” the Secretary-General’s spokesperson Michele Montas told reporters, adding that “there is a question of some underage girls.”

[224] Article: “AP Investigation: UN Troops Lured Kids Into Haiti Sex Ring.” By Paisley Dodds. Associated Press, April 12, 2017. <www.apnews.com>

“From 2004 to 2007, nine Haitian children were exploited by a child sex ring involving at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers, according to a U.N. report obtained by The Associated Press. Often the children were given cookies or a few dollars in exchange for sex. Although 114 of the peacekeepers were sent home, none was ever jailed for the abuse.”

[225] “Taking Action on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by Peacekeepers: Report of an Independent Review on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by International Peacekeeping Forces in the Central African Republic.” By Marie Deschamps, Hassan B. Jallow, and Yasmin Sooka. United Nations, December 17, 2015. <www.un.org>

Page ii:

Between May and June 2014, a Human Rights Officer (“HRO”) working for the UN mission in CAR, together with local UNICEF staff, interviewed six young boys. The children reported that they had been subjected to sexual abuse by international peacekeeping troops or that they had witnessed other children being abused. In most cases, the alleged perpetrators were from the French Sangaris Forces. In exchange, the children received small amounts of food or cash from the soldiers. All of the incidents occurred between December 2013 and June 2014, near the M’Poko Internally Displaced Persons Camp in Bangui. In some cases the children also reported detailed information about the perpetrators, including names and certain distinguishing features such as tattoos, piercings and facial features.

[226] “Final Report: Expert Mission to Evaluate Risks to SEA Prevention Efforts in MINUSTAH, UNMIL, MONUSCO, and UNMISS.” By Dr. Thelma Awori, Dr. Catherine Lutz, and General Paban J. Thapa. United Nations, November 3, 2013. <static1.squarespace.com>

Page 6:

Poverty as a Context for SEA

The four missions are situated in post conflict contexts with all the characteristics of the most extreme social and economic disintegration and dysfunction; the countries (for which data are available) rank at 161 (Haiti), 174 (Liberia), and 186 (Congo) out of 187 countries on the Human Development Index. … Given this background, in all four missions, poverty presents a context for transactional sex. With few alternatives for livelihood, women and girls risk finding no alternative but sex for pay or food. This has been especially well documented in South Sudan (Veldwijk and Groenendijk 2011). It is not surprising, then, that research shows that less developed countries have higher rates of SEA in peacekeeping missions (Nordas and Rustad 2013).

The information reported by the children indicates that the violations were likely not isolated incidents. For example, some of the children described witnessing the rape of other child victims (who were not interviewed by the HRO); others indicated that it was known that they could approach certain Sangaris soldiers for food, but would be compelled to submit to sexual abuse in exchange. In several cases soldiers reportedly acknowledged or coordinated with each other, for example by bringing a child onto the base, past guards, where civilians were not authorized to be, or by calling out to children and instructing them to approach (indicating that the perpetrators did not fear being caught). In sum, if the Allegations are substantiated by further investigation, they could potentially indicate the existence of a pattern of sexual violence against children by some peacekeeping forces in CAR.

[227] “Final Report: Expert Mission to Evaluate Risks to SEA Prevention Efforts in MINUSTAH, UNMIL, MONUSCO, and UNMISS.” By Dr. Thelma Awori, Dr. Catherine Lutz, and General Paban J. Thapa. United Nations, November 3, 2013. <static1.squarespace.com>

Page 6:

Culture of Impunity and Normalization for Gender-Based Violence and Exploitation

Post-conflict societies are characterized by a breakdown of norms with respect to human rights and dignity. In these situations, women are especially vulnerable. Endemic rape and abuse during the conflict that led up to the peacekeeping mission has also normalized SEA in each case. In the post conflict situation, the level of rape of women and children has often remained high, even as high as or higher than in the more conflict-ridden period (Jewkes 2007). In Liberia for instance, the UNMIL Gender Office reports that four referral hospitals in Monrovia alone treated 814 cases of rape between January to June 2013. The overwhelming majority (95 percent) of the victims were children under 18 years. This “normalization” process creates a conducive atmosphere on both the perpetrators’ side and the victims’, with the local community accepting the abuse to some degree. In addition, in all four mission areas, legal assistance and protections for women are weak or even nonexistent. Even were they not, many families are reported to settle sexual violence cases among themselves to avoid stigma, a stigma which often adheres to the victim rather than the perpetrator (D’Awol 2011). As has been shown across peacekeeping cases, this all has likely made reporting of SEA by peacekeepers or others less likely (Kent 2007).

[228] “Final Report: Expert Mission to Evaluate Risks to SEA Prevention Efforts in MINUSTAH, UNMIL, MONUSCO, and UNMISS.” By Dr. Thelma Awori, Dr. Catherine Lutz, and General Paban J. Thapa. United Nations, November 3, 2013. <static1.squarespace.com>

Pages 6–7:

Background and Cultural Norms of Peacekeepers

UN Peacekeepers come from cultural backgrounds that are not totally different from their host countries in terms of how women are treated or how gender relations are managed. That is, sexual objectification or sexual coercion of women may be seen as normal and acceptable. Local women may additional be seen as exploitable by virtue of their place in a racial or ethnic hierarchy. … Some peacekeepers … come to mission with racial ideas that suggest superiority to the local population. …

The UN has as yet not been able to address these issues of sex and race bias directly.

Page 9:

At root, the behavior of SEA and the failure to report SEA when it is observed in others is rooted in peacekeeper attitudes towards the zero tolerance policy as well as toward the local population, particularly of women and girls. … Moreover, rape has been found to occur at higher rates where the victim is devalued (Malamuth 1986), particularly by virtue of her gender, race, ethnicity, or impoverishment. Training does not always directly address and challenge these assumptions and value orientations (and specifically and especially around racism and attitudes to women).

[229] “Secretary-General’s Bulletin: Special Measures for Protection From Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse.” United Nations Secretariat, October 9, 2003. <undocs.org>

For the purposes of the present bulletin, the term “sexual exploitation” means any actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust, for sexual purposes, including, but not limited to, profiting monetarily, socially or politically from the sexual exploitation of another. Similarly, the term “sexual abuse” means the actual or threatened physical intrusion of a sexual nature, whether by force or under unequal or coercive conditions. …

The present bulletin shall apply to all staff of the United Nations, including staff of separately administered organs and programmes of the United Nations. …

United Nations forces conducting operations under United Nations command and control are prohibited from committing acts of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, and have a particular duty of care towards women and children, pursuant to section 7 of Secretary-General’s bulletin ST/SGB/1999/13, entitled “Observance by United Nations forces of international humanitarian law.” …

Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse violate universally recognized international legal norms and standards and have always been unacceptable behaviour and prohibited conduct for United Nations staff. Such conduct is prohibited by the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules. …

In order to further protect the most vulnerable populations, especially women and children, the following specific standards which reiterate existing general obligations under the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules, are promulgated:

(a) Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse constitute acts of serious misconduct and are therefore grounds for disciplinary measures, including summary dismissal;

(b) Sexual activity with children (persons under the age of 18) is prohibited regardless of the age of majority or age of consent locally. Mistaken belief in the age of a child is not a defence;

(c) Exchange of money, employment, goods or services for sex, including sexual favours or other forms of humiliating, degrading or exploitative behaviour, is prohibited. This includes any exchange of assistance that is due to beneficiaries of assistance;

(d) Sexual relationships between United Nations staff and beneficiaries of assistance, since they are based on inherently unequal power dynamics, undermine the credibility and integrity of the work of the United Nations and are strongly discouraged;

(e) Where a United Nations staff member develops concerns or suspicions regarding sexual exploitation or sexual abuse by a fellow worker, whether in the same agency or not and whether or not within the United Nations system, he or she must report such concerns via established reporting mechanisms;

(f) United Nations staff are obliged to create and maintain an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. Managers at all levels have a particular responsibility to support and develop systems that maintain this environment. …

The standards set out above are not intended to be an exhaustive list. Other types of sexually exploitive or sexually abusive behaviour may be grounds for administrative action or disciplinary measures, including summary dismissal, pursuant to the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules.

[230] “Taking Action on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by Peacekeepers: Report of an Independent Review on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by International Peacekeeping Forces in the Central African Republic.” By Marie Deschamps, Hassan B. Jallow, and Yasmin Sooka. United Nations, December 17, 2015. <www.un.org>

Page 15:

UN peacekeepers have been implicated in sex scandals since the early 1990s with cases reported in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Cambodia, East Timor, West Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Liberia, South Sudan,34 and the recent cases in CAR [Central African Republic] in 2014 and 2015.

In 2003, after two decades of repeated incidents of sexual violence by peacekeepers, the UN Secretary-General issued a Bulletin on Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse,35 setting out extensive prohibitions regarding sexual conduct by UN staff and peacekeepers, including a prohibition on sexual relations with members of the local community, given the “inherently unequal power dynamics.”36 The Bulletin also specifically prohibits sexual activity with children, “regardless of the age of majority or age of consent locally,” as well as prohibiting prostitution in general.37 This Bulletin is generally referred to as the UN’s zero tolerance policy.38

[231] Article: “Tough UN Line on Peacekeeper Abuses.” By Michael Fleshman. United Nations Africa Renewal, April 2005. <www.un.org>

Although UN personnel rules and peacekeeping codes have been steadily strengthened in recent years, enforcement of such rules for peacekeeping troops, including punishment for violations, is the responsibility of individual contributing countries. Under agreements regulating the relationship between the UN and troop contributors, peacekeepers are deployed as national contingents, each with its own commanders. The UN can ask for repatriation of individuals suspected of misconduct, request that the contributing country take appropriate disciplinary action and bar the suspects from future missions. But the UN does not have the authority to bring criminal charges or to convict and punish blue helmets for misconduct. It is the responsibility of each government to decide whether or how to punish its nationals for misconduct on UN missions.

[232] Paper: “UNaccountable: A New Approach to Peacekeepers and Sexual Abuse.” By Rosa Freedman. European Journal of International Law, November 9, 2018. Pages 961–985. <doi.org>

Page 964:

In relation to soldiers, there are again many factors that must be understood in relation to the failure to hold accountable perpetrators of sexual violence. These range from some countries having inadequate national laws on sexual abuse, to cultural and political resistance, and to failures by the UN to monitor and follow up on the implementation of the legal obligations of troop-contributing countries.

Pages 968–969:

Soldiers are not directly employed by the UN; they remain under the control of their home country, which in turn has a contract with the UN. Those individuals are covered by bilateral agreements between their sending state (the TCC) and the UN, and it is that document that sets out jurisdiction over such personnel if they commit crimes while on peacekeeping operations.18 Military personnel operate under a system where the host state is barred from exercising jurisdiction in relation to crimes committed by those individuals. That is not an immunity per se as the TCC retains exclusive jurisdiction over its own soldiers and commits to exercise that jurisdiction to prosecute troops who commit criminal offences while on missions.19 However, it does operate as an absolute immunity from the jurisdiction of the host state. The jurisdictional bars prevent host countries from investigating or prosecuting any crimes, regardless of whether they were committed as part of official functions. The TCC is obligated to investigate and prosecute such crimes, with the UN being limited to administrative investigations and, even then, only if the TCC fails to undertake its own investigations within 10 days of an allegation being handed over to its authorities. Prosecutions may occur by the host state if a soldier is court-martialled in situ and handed over to local authorities or if that soldier is taken to military courts or national courts in their home state. The decision as to how to proceed, therefore, belongs exclusively to the TCC.20

[233] Report: “A Comprehensive Strategy to Eliminate Future Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.” United Nations General Assembly, March 24, 2005. <undocs.org>

Page 1:

Letter Dated 24 March 2005 From Secretary-General to the President of the General Assembly

[I]n July 2004, I invited His Royal Highness Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein, Permanent Representative of Jordan, to act as my adviser and assist me in addressing the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse by United Nations peacekeeping personnel. As the Permanent Representative of a major troop- and police-contributing country and a former civilian peacekeeper, Prince Zeid has brought a vital perspective to the problem and potential solutions. Thus, when the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, in its 2005 report (A/59/19), requested me to make available a comprehensive report with recommendations on sexual exploitation and abuse by United Nations peacekeeping personnel, I asked Prince Zeid to undertake its preparation. This report I now submit to you.

Page 13:

The prohibitions against sexual exploitation and abuse for all categories of peacekeeping personnel should be those set out in the 2003 Secretary-General’s bulletin. …

It is recommended that the Special Committee recommend to the General Assembly that all civilian and uniformed personnel appointed or contracted by the United Nations be bound by the standards set out in the 2003 bulletin and that all peacekeeping personnel appointed by the Secretary-General be bound by appropriate language in their contracts or letters of engagement. …

As to military members of contingents, it is recommended that the Special Committee recommend to the General Assembly that it adopt the standards set out in the 2003 bulletin as a uniform standard of conduct for all military members of national contingents serving in peacekeeping operations. It is recommended that the General Assembly decide that those standards should be incorporated into the model memorandums of understanding between the United Nations and troop-contributing countries and that the model memorandum of understanding should require that troop-contributing countries issue those standards in a form binding on their contingent members.

Page 15: “It is thus recommended that, for cases of sexual exploitation and abuse … the Secretary-General establish a permanent professional investigative capacity sharing some of the administrative machinery of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations yet remaining totally independent of the command structures of the Department and the missions.”

Page 27:

It is therefore recommended that the model memorandum of understanding contain a clause indicating that if a Department of Peacekeeping Operations investigation … concludes that the allegations are well founded, the troop-contributing country is obligated to forward the case to its national authorities to be considered for prosecution. The model memorandum of understanding should further provide that those authorities will take their decision in the same manner as they would for an offence of a similar grave nature falling under the laws of that country. …

It must be emphasized that the provisions outlined above do not obligate a troop-contributing country to prosecute. A decision whether or not to prosecute is an act of sovereignty. However, these provisions will require a troop-contributing country to submit the case to the appropriate authorities, who must decide whether or not to prosecute in the same way as they would for an offence of a similar grave nature under their laws in their own jurisdiction. The suggested provisions would also obligate the troop-contributing country to report the outcome of the case in its jurisdiction.

[234] Article: “General Assembly Confirms Jordan’s Prince Zeid as New UN Human Rights Chief.” United Nations UN News, June 16, 2014. <news.un.org>

“The United Nations General Assembly today unanimously approved Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein of Jordan as the new High Commissioner for Human Rights, succeeding Navi Pillay of South Africa.”

[235] “Final Report: Expert Mission to Evaluate Risks to SEA Prevention Efforts in MINUSTAH, UNMIL, MONUSCO, and UNMISS.” By Dr. Thelma Awori, Dr. Catherine Lutz, and General Paban J. Thapa. United Nations, November 3, 2013. <static1.squarespace.com>

Page 2:

Sexual Exploitation and Abuse has been judged the most significant risk to UN peacekeeping missions, above and beyond other key risks including protection of civilians. Certain UN missions have consistently experienced the largest number of reported allegations of SEA, namely the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), Haiti (MINUSTAH), Liberia (UNMIL), and South Sudan (UNMISS) which together account for 85 percent of cases. While it is true that the number of SEA cases is decreasing in these missions, of the 60 allegations reported in 2012, 27 (45 percent) involved the most serious forms of sexual exploitation and abuse: there were 18 allegations of sexual activities with minors (30 percent) and an additional 9 allegations of non-consensual sex with persons aged 18 or older (15 percent). The facts call for urgent action on the part of the United Nations and its member states in order to fulfill the mandate of the UN.

Context

Against this background, the Secretary General of the United Nations prepares regular reports for the General Assembly and the Security Council on the status of observance of the 2003 Secretary General’s Bulletin on Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. In preparation for the upcoming report, a small team of experts were contracted to assess and identify any risk factors that might continue to undermine the tremendous amount of work that has gone into ensuring the successful implementation of this policy.

[236] “Taking Action on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by Peacekeepers: Report of an Independent Review on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by International Peacekeeping Forces in the Central African Republic.” By Marie Deschamps, Hassan B. Jallow, and Yasmin Sooka. United Nations, December 17, 2015. <www.un.org>

Page 16:

The reoccurrence of allegations of sexual violence by peacekeeping forces has led the UN to conduct a number of high-level inquiries into the problem over the last decade.41 These Reports contain careful and considered analyses of the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping operations, as well as clear recommendations for change. In some cases, the Organization has made efforts to implement the recommendations. For example, following on the recommendation of the 2005 Zeid Report, the UN clarified standards of conduct in relation to sexual exploitation and abuse for peacekeepers and created a Conduct and Discipline Unit in charge of conduct and discipline issues in field missions. The Conduct and Discipline Unit is charged with formulating policies, conducting training, and handling allegations of misconduct by peacekeepers operating under UN command.42 Yet critical recommendations have never been implemented. For example, the Zeid Report identified the importance of creating a permanent professional investigative mechanism.43 This recommendation was never adopted and remains a serious gap in promoting accountability.

Despite the fact that the UN has had the benefit of these reports for some time, substantively little has changed on the ground. As a result of the problems identified, the previous expert reports remain just as much at issue today. Worse, the culture of impunity has only become more entrenched as both victims and perpetrators have little reason to believe that crimes will be punished in any meaningful way, or that effective measures will be put in place to prevent future abuses. It was in the context of this culture of impunity that the Allegations that are the subject of this Report arose.

[237] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

We the peoples of the United Nations determined … to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of national large and small … have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims. …

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are: …

3 To achieve international co-operation in … promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion….

[238] Webpage: “Protect Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights brought human rights into the realm of international law. Since then, the Organization has diligently protected human rights through legal instruments and on-the-ground activities. … A series of international human rights treaties and other instruments adopted since 1945 have expanded the body of international human rights law.

[239] Entry: “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” By George J. Andreopoulos. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Revised 3/17/05. <www.britannica.com>

After minor changes it was adopted unanimously—though with abstentions from the Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian SSR, and Yugoslavia—by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948 (now celebrated annually as Human Rights Day), as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.”

[240] Webpage: “History of the Document.” United Nations. Accessed November 12, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired the UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] drafting committee. With her were René Cassin of France, who composed the first draft of the Declaration, the Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon, Vice-Chairman Peng Chung Chang of China, and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UN’s Human Rights Division, who prepared the Declaration’s blueprint. But Mrs. Roosevelt was recognized as the driving force for the Declaration’s adoption. …

[241] Entry: “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” By George J. Andreopoulos. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Revised 3/17/05. <www.britannica.com>

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), foundational document of international human rights law. It has been referred to as humanity’s Magna Carta by Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights that was responsible for the drafting of the document. …

The document’s nonbinding status was initially perceived as one of its major weaknesses. Authoritarian states, which usually sought to protect themselves against what they considered interference in their internal affairs, approved of this feature of the declaration, and even some democratic countries initially worried about the potentially intrusive nature of the obligations that a legally binding document would impose. Some observers have argued, however, that its nonbinding status is one of the UDHR’s major advantages. Its inherent flexibility has offered ample room for new strategies to promote human rights and has allowed it to serve as a springboard for the development of numerous legislative initiatives in international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which were adopted in 1966. In addition, the UDHR has been reaffirmed in numerous resolutions passed by organs and agencies of the UN, and many countries have incorporated it into their national constitutions. These developments have led many analysts to conclude that, despite its nonbinding status, its provisions have achieved a juridical status akin to that of norms of customary international law.

[242] Webpage: “The Foundation of International Human Rights Law.” United Nations. Accessed November 12, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law. Adopted in 1948, the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties. It continues to be an inspiration to us all whether in addressing injustices, in times of conflicts, in societies suffering repression, and in our efforts towards achieving universal enjoyment of human rights.

[243] Report: “The Human Rights Council: A Practical Guide.” Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations Office, 2015. <www.eda.admin.ch>

Page 11:

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

The UPR is based on the legal and political commitments to human rights contained in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international human rights instruments to which the states under review are party, and the voluntary commitments made by the states, especially those undertaken when presenting their candidature for election to the HRC [Human Rights Council].

[244] Entry: “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” By George J. Andreopoulos. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Revised 3/17/05. <www.britannica.com>

“The UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] comprises 30 articles that contain a comprehensive listing of key civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Articles 3 through 21 outline civil and political rights, which include the right against torture, the right to an effective remedy for human rights violations, and the right to take part in government.”

[245] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. …

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

[246] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. …

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

[247] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. …

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

[248] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

[249] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

[250] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

[251] Entry: “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” By George J. Andreopoulos. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Revised 3/17/05. <www.britannica.com>

“Articles 22 through 27 detail economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to work, the right to form and to join trade unions, and the right to participate freely in the cultural life of the community.”

[252] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

[253] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

[254] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

[255] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

[256] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 27

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

[257] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

[258] Book: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent. By Johannes Morsink. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

Page 86:

[T]he Second Session adopted the following text: “All laws in any State shall be in conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations as embodied in the Charter insofar as they deal with human rights.” … That is a positive demand for implementation and was for that very reason rejected. But it is not all that different from the phrase “not be contrary to,” which is how this article came to be rephrased….

As a result of Egyptian and French proposals the Third Committee added this paragraph to Article 29: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” We should note that the disagreement between General Romulo, who wanted just the Charter mentioned and Professor Cassin, who had wanted to also make reference to the Declaration, was settled by way of a compromise. Neither document is mentioned. But the new wording leaves no doubt that “the purposes and principles of the United Nations” include the rights listed in the Declaration, for they were proclaimed by the Third General Assembly of the United Nations. This is a roundabout way of saying that the legal systems of countries should be in conformity with the Declaration.

[259] Entry: “United Nations.” By Jacques Fomerand, Karen Mingst, and Cecelia M. Lynch. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Updated 10/13/17. <www.britannica.com>

After the declaration, the commission began drafting two covenants, one on civil and political rights and another on economic and cultural rights. Differences in economic and social philosophies hampered efforts to reach agreement, but the General Assembly eventually adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966. The covenants, which entered into force in 1976, are known collectively, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the international bill of rights. Although all countries have stated support for the 1948 declaration, not all observe or have ratified the two covenants. In general, Western countries have favoured civil and political rights (rights to life, liberty, freedom from slavery and arbitrary arrest, freedom of opinion and peaceful assembly, and the right to vote), and developing countries have stressed economic and cultural rights such as the rights to employment, shelter, education, and an adequate standard of living.

[260] Entry: “International Law.” By Malcolm Shaw. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Revised 9/30/08. <www.britannica.com>

Treaties are known by a variety of terms—conventions, agreements, pacts, general acts, charters, and covenants—all of which signify written instruments in which the participants (usually but not always states) agree to be bound by the negotiated terms. … Countries that do not sign and ratify a treaty are not bound by its provisions. … A treaty is based on the consent of the parties to it, is binding, and must be executed in good faith.

[261] Paper: “U.S. Reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Credibility Maximization and Global Influence.” By Kristina Ash. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 2005. <scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu>

Page 4 (of PDF): “In 1992, after attaching a number of RUDs [reservations, understandings, and declarations] which rendered the treaty powerless under domestic law, the United States Senate finally voted to ratify the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], twenty-six years after it was unanimously adopted by the U.N.”

Page 5 (of PDF): “Even though U.S. Congressmen ‘recognize[d] the importance of adhering to internationally recognized standards of human rights,’44 they nonetheless excepted the United States from several provisions in the treaty by making an unprecedented number of RUDs.”

[262] “Resolution of Ratification: Senate Consideration of Treaty Document 95-20.” United States Senate, April 2, 1992. <www.congress.gov>

“The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the instrument of ratification to be deposited by the President: Nothing in this Covenant requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.”

[263] Entry: “International Law.” By Malcolm Shaw. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Revised 9/30/08. <www.britannica.com>

Treaties are known by a variety of terms—conventions, agreements, pacts, general acts, charters, and covenants—all of which signify written instruments in which the participants (usually but not always states) agree to be bound by the negotiated terms. … Countries that do not sign and ratify a treaty are not bound by its provisions. … A treaty is based on the consent of the parties to it, is binding, and must be executed in good faith.

[264] Entry: “Human Rights.” By Burns H. Weston. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Revised 3/20/14. <www.britannica.com>

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) was opened for signature on December 16, 1966, and entered into force on January 3, 1976. Also part of the International Bill of Human Rights, it elaborates upon most of the economic, social, and cultural rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including, among others, the right to work, the right to form and join trade unions, the right to health, and the right to education. Unlike its companion agreement, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, however, generally this covenant, sometimes called a “promotional convention,” was not intended for immediate implementation, the state parties having agreed only “to take steps” toward “achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the … Covenant,” and then subject to “the maximum of [their] available resources.” One obligation, however, was subject to immediate application: the prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights enumerated on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, and birth or other status.

[265] “International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 14, 2018 at <www.ohchr.org>

Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

[266] Webpage: “Status of Ratification Interactive Dashboard.” United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Accessed December 14, 2018 at <indicators.ohchr.org>

“United States of America … International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: 1976 … Ratification Status [=] Signature: 1977, Ratification/Accession: N/A”

[267] Webpage: “Protect Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed December 14, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was the first legal document protecting universal human rights. Together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the three instruments form the so-called International Bill of Human Rights.”

[268] Webpage: “Status of Ratification Interactive Dashboard.” United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Accessed December 14, 2018 at <indicators.ohchr.org>

United States of America … International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination … Ratification Status [=] Signature: 1966, Ratification/Accession: 1994 … Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment … Ratification Status [=] Signature: 1988, Ratification/Accession: 1994 … Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict [=] Signature: 2000, Ratification/Accession: 2002 … Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography [=] Signature: 2000, Ratification/Accession: 2002

[269] Webpage: “Status of Ratification Interactive Dashboard.” United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Accessed December 14, 2018 at <indicators.ohchr.org>

Declarations

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

… The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following reservations: … Accordingly, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention … through the adoption of legislation or any other measures, to the extent that they are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. … To the extent … that the Convention calls for a broader regulation of private conduct, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention to enact legislation or take other measures … with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States. …

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following reservations: … That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” only insofar as the term “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. …

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict

The Government of the United States of America declares, pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict that—(A) the minimum age at which the United States permits voluntary recruitment into the Armed Forces of the United States is 17 years of age; (B) The United States has established safeguards to ensure that such recruitment is not forced or coerced, including a requirement in section 505 (a) of title 10, United States Code, that no person under 18 years of age may be originally enlisted in the Armed Forces of the United States without the written consent of the person’s parent or guardian, if the parent or guardian is entitled to the person’s custody and control; (C) each person recruited into the Armed Forces of the United States receives a comprehensive briefing and must sign an enlistment contract that, taken together, specify the duties involved in military service; and (D) all persons recruited into the Armed Forces of the United States must provide reliable proof of age before their entry into military service. …

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography

To the extent that the domestic law of the United States does not provide for jurisdiction over an offense described in Article 3 (1) of the Protocol if the offense is committed on board a ship or aircraft registered in the United States, the obligation with respect to jurisdiction over that offense shall not apply to the United States until such time as the United States may notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations that United States domestic law is in full conformity with the requirements of Article 4 (1) of the Protocol. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following understandings: … The United States understands that the Protocol shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the State and local governments. To the extent that State and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall as necessary, take appropriate measures to ensure the fulfillment of the Protocol.

[270] Entry: “Human Rights.” By Burns H. Weston. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Revised 3/20/14. <www.britannica.com>

The United Nations, founded in 1945 after World War II and the Holocaust, was created principally to maintain international peace and security and to encourage and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. …

It must be noted, however, that a proposal to ensure the protection (i.e., enforcement) of human rights as distinct from their promotion (i.e., advocacy) was explicitly rejected at the Charter-drafting San Francisco conference establishing the UN. Accordingly, while providing for the UN Security Council to enforce the UN’s first primary purpose (maintaining international peace and security), the drafters did not specify a comparable body to give teeth to its second primary purpose (promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms). … Furthermore, though typical of major constitutive instruments, the Charter is conspicuously given to generality and vagueness in its human rights clauses, among others.

[271] Book: Human Rights in International Relations. By David P. Forsythe. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Page 37: “The theory of rights was revolutionary: all individuals manifested them and even sovereign states had to respect them. But neither the United Nations nor any other organization in 1945 was given clear supranational authority to ensure their respect.”

[272] Entry: “United Nations.” By Jacques Fomerand, Karen Mingst, and Cecelia M. Lynch. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Updated 10/13/17. <www.britannica.com>

[T]he Commission on Human Rights … was created in 1946 to develop conventions on a wide range of issues, including an international bill of rights, civil liberties, the status of women (for which there is now a separate commission), freedom of information, the protection of minorities, the prevention of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, language, or religion, and any other human rights concerns. The commission prepared the nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948.

After the declaration, the commission began drafting two covenants … [and] the General Assembly eventually adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966. The covenants, which entered into force in 1976, are known collectively, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the international bill of rights.

[273] Entry: “Human Rights.” By Burns H. Weston. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Revised 3/20/14. <www.britannica.com>

Between 1946 and 2006 the UN Commission on Human Rights, created as a subsidiary body of ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council], served as the UN’s central policy organ in the human rights field. For the first 20 years of its existence, however, the commission believed itself to be unauthorized to deal with human rights complaints. During its first two decades, therefore, and together with other UN bodies … it concentrated on setting human rights standards and drafting a number of historically vital international human rights instruments. Among the most important of these were the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols (1966 and 1989). Together, these three instruments and the Optional Protocols constitute what has come to be known as the International Bill of Human Rights, serving as touchstones for interpreting the human rights provisions of the UN Charter. Also central in this regard were the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), each of which elaborated on provisions of the International Bill of Human Rights.

[274] Book: The UN Special Procedures in the Field of Human Rights. By Ingrid Nifosi. Intersentia Publishers, 2005.

Page 8: “The first phase of the CHR’s [Commission on Human Rights] Practice (1946–1966) may be identified as the period of the ‘no power to act’ doctrine. … With this statement the CHR took a very restrictive interpretation of its mandate, confining its activity and authority to a mere promotional ambit.”

Page 10:

The “no power to act” doctrine informed the practice of the CHR for twenty years,39 during which time priority was given to the drafting of international human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights,40 the Convention on Genocide,41 the two Covenants of 1966,42 the Declaration on the Right of the Child,43 and the Declaration on Territorial Asylum.44

[275] Report: “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All.” By Kofi Annan. United Nations General Assembly, March 21, 2005. <undocs.org>

Page 45:

[T]he Commission’s capacity to perform its tasks has been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism. In particular, States have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others. As a result, a credibility deficit has developed, which casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.

… If the United Nations is to meet the expectations of men and women everywhere—and indeed, if the Organization is to take the cause of human rights as seriously as those of security and development—then Member States should agree to replace the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller standing Human Rights Council. … The creation of the Council would accord human rights a more authoritative position, corresponding to the primacy of human rights in the Charter of the United Nations. … Those elected to the Council should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards.

[276] Article: “ ‘In Larger Freedom’: Decision Time at the UN.” By Kofi Annan. Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs, May 2005. <www.foreignaffairs.com>

The Commission on Human Rights has been discredited in the eyes of many. Too often states seek membership to insulate themselves from criticism or to criticize others, rather than to assist in the body’s true task, which is to monitor and encourage the compliance of all states with their human rights obligations. The time has come for real reform. The commission should be transformed into a new Human Rights Council. The members of this council should be elected directly by the General Assembly and pledge to abide by the highest human rights standards.

[277] Webpage: “Protect Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The Human Rights Council, established in 2006, replaced the 60-year-old UN Commission on Human Rights as the key independent UN intergovernmental body responsible for human rights.”

[278] Report: “The Human Rights Council: A Practical Guide.” Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations Office, 2015. <www.eda.admin.ch>

Page 5:

The HRC [Human Rights Council] is the principal inter-governmental forum within the United Nations for questions relating to human rights. Its resolutions and decisions are not legally binding but do contain strong political commitments.

The HRC’s function is to ensure the effective implementation of human rights as guaranteed by international law, and in particular by the various instruments of the United Nations

Specifically, the HRC:

• addresses situations of violations of human rights around the world and in relation to specific countries or thematic issues (e.g. discrimination against women), adopts a position and makes recommendations;

• establishes international ‘standards’ in the field of human rights (e.g. guidelines on human rights and private enterprises);

• develops instruments which are legally binding (e.g. protocol providing for a complaints procedure for the Convention on the Rights of the Child);

• promotes human rights through dialogue, by reinforcing capacity-building and by providing technical assistance.

Page 23:

Resolutions generally have indirect and long-term repercussions as their primary purpose is to instigate or induce legislative change or best practice at the national level. Resolutions also allow the international community’s attention to be drawn to particular topics or country-specific situations. Resolutions of this kind sometimes serve as triggers for action by other institutions, such as the Security Council. The SG [secretary-general] and OHCHR [Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights] regularly send questionnaires to the states enquiring in detail as to how they are implementing a given thematic resolution. The states are free to reply or not.

[279] Webpage: “Universal Periodic Review.” United Nations Human Rights Council. Accessed November 12, 2018 at <www.ohchr.org>

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a review of the human rights records of all UN Member States. The UPR is a State-driven process, under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, which provides the opportunity for each State to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfil their human rights obligations.

As one of the main features of the Council, the UPR is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed. The ultimate aim of this mechanism is to improve the human rights situation in all countries and address human rights violations wherever they occur. Currently, no other universal mechanism of this kind exists.

[280] Report: “The Human Rights Council: A Practical Guide.” Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations Office, 2015. <www.eda.admin.ch>

Page 11:

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

The HRC [Human Rights Council] peer review mechanism involves examining the human rights record of each UN member state according to a fixed and predictable schedule. … The current periodicity of the UPR is four and a half years. … The UPR is a full-circle process comprising three key stages:

• An assessment of the human rights situation in the country under review;

• Between two reviews (4.5 years), implementation by the state concerned of the recommendations given and any voluntary pledges made;

• At the next review, an account of the implementation of these recommendations and commitments and an assessment of the human rights situation in that country since the last review. …

The UPR is based on the legal and political commitments to human rights contained in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international human rights instruments to which the states under review are party, and the voluntary commitments made by the states, especially those undertaken when presenting their candidature for election to the HRC. A significant number of recommendations also relate to questions of compliance with and implementation of international humanitarian law. A growing number of recommendations refer to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

For each state, the review is based on three documents from three distinct sources:

• The national report: without being obliged to do so, the states are nevertheless expected to present a national report (of no more than 20 pages). …

• A compilation of United Nations information; the OHCHR [Office of the High Commission on Human Rights] compiles a summary, no more than 10 pages long, of information deriving from official UN documents (e.g. from treaty bodies, special procedures or special agencies such as the UNDP and UNICEF, etc.);

• A stakeholders’ report: the OHCHR puts together a ten-page summary of information provided by all other relevant stakeholders. The latter primarily include NGOs [non-government organizations], NHRIs [national human rights institutions], defenders of human rights, academic institutions, regional organisations and other representatives of civil society.

[281] Webpage: “Universal Periodic Review Frequently Asked Questions.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed November 12, 2018 at <www.state.gov>

The reviews are conducted by the UPR [Universal Periodic Review] Working Group, which consists of the 47 members of the Council; however, any UN Member State can take part in the discussion. …

The basis of review includes: the Charter of the United Nations; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights instruments to which a State is party; voluntary pledges and commitments made by States, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to the Human Rights Council; and, given the complementary and mutually interrelated nature of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the review also takes into account applicable international humanitarian law.

During the UPR session, three documents are considered. First, there is a “national report” that is provided by the State under review. Second, there is a UN report, compiled by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), that includes information provided by relevant experts such as human rights treaty bodies and UN Human Rights Special Rapporteurs. Third, there is a “stakeholders report,” compiled by OHCHR consisting of information provided from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national human rights institutions.

[282] Report: “The Human Rights Council: A Practical Guide.” Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations Office, 2015. <www.eda.admin.ch>

Page 12:

The outcome of the review is a report prepared by the troika with the involvement of the state under review and the assistance of the HRC [Human Rights Council] Secretariat. This report contains a summary of the interactive dialogue, the responses of the state under review to the questions put and, above all, a complete list of the recommendations made to the state concerned by the other states. These recommendations are intended to improve the human rights situation in the state under review. Although they may differ in nature and in terms of topic addressed, they remain the key element of the review. The state being reviewed may accept or refuse to accept/note these recommendations. The state under review may respond to all or part of the recommendations during the review process or may take the time to reflect on them before presenting its views (at the latest immediately prior to adoption of the UPR report by the HRC).

[283] Webpage: “Universal Periodic Review Frequently Asked Questions.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed November 12, 2018 at <www.state.gov>

Reviews take place through an interactive discussion between the State under review and other UN Member States at a meeting conducted by the UPR [Universal Periodic Review] Working Group. During this discussion any UN Member State can pose questions, offer comments, and make recommendations to the States under review. … The duration of the review … has been extended to three hours and 30 minutes.

[284] Webpage: “Protect Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed November 9, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The High Commissioner for Human Rights regularly comments on human rights situations in the world and has the authority to investigate situations and issue reports on them.”

[285] “UN Human Rights Report 2017.” United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, June 2018. <www2.ohchr.org>

Pages 57–58:

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Human Rights) is the leading UN entity on human rights. …

The work of UN Human Rights encompasses three broad areas, namely, human rights standard-setting, monitoring and supporting the implementation of human rights obligations by States. Substantive and technical support is provided to the various UN human rights bodies as they undertake their standard-setting and monitoring duties. …

The Human Rights Council (HRC) … receives secretariat and technical support from the Office in its work, including in the context of its regular and special sessions, organizational meetings and the meetings of its subsidiary bodies. UN Human Rights also organizes and supports stakeholder meetings, special events, discussions and expert panels.

In addition, UN Human Rights supports the Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism. By November 2016, all 193 Member States had been reviewed by the UPR for the second time and in May 2017, the third cycle began. …

Furthermore, UN Human Rights provides secretariat and technical assistance to independent human rights experts, known as special procedures mandate-holders, who are appointed by the Council and mandated to report and advise on human rights issues and situations from a thematic or country-specific perspective. …

Finally, UN Human Rights provides support to the 10 human rights treaty bodies. The treaty bodies are committees of independent experts that consider the progress that has been made and the challenges that are being faced by countries in implementing the obligations of the international human rights treaties they have ratified.

[286] Webpage: “Who We Are.” United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.ohchr.org>

UN Human Rights provides assistance in the form of technical expertise and capacity-development in order to support the implementation of international human rights standards on the ground. It assists governments, which bear the primary responsibility for the protection of human rights, to fulfil their obligations and supports individuals to claim their rights. …

UN Human Rights is part of the United Nations Secretariat, with a staff of some 1300 people and its headquarters in Geneva, as well as an office in New York.

[287] Webpage: “Human Rights Treaty Bodies.” United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.ohchr.org>

The human rights treaty bodies are committees of independent experts that monitor implementation of the core international human rights treaties. Each State party to a treaty has an obligation to take steps to ensure that everyone in the State can enjoy the rights set out in the treaty.

Currently, there are nine human rights international treaties, and one optional protocol, from which 10 treaty bodies have been established. The treaty bodies are composed of independent experts of recognized competence in human rights, who are nominated and elected for fixed renewable terms of four years by State parties.

[288] Webpage: “Social, Humanitarian & Cultural Issues (Third Committee).” General Assembly of the United Nations. Accessed December 13, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The General Assembly allocates to the Third Committee, agenda items relating to a range of social, humanitarian affairs and human rights issues that affect people all over the world.

As in previous sessions, an important part of the work of the Committee will focus on the examination of human rights questions, including reports of the special procedures of the Human Rights Council which was established in 2006. In October 2018, the Committee will hear and interact with special rapporteurs, independent experts, and chairs of working groups as mandated by the Human Rights Council. …

At the seventy-second session of the General Assembly, the Third Committee considered over 60 draft resolutions, more than half of which were submitted under the human rights agenda item alone. These included three so-called country-specific resolutions on human rights situations.

[289] Entry: “International Law.” By Malcolm Shaw. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Revised 9/30/08. <www.britannica.com>

“[A]lthough the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, which consists of representatives of some 190 countries, has the outward appearances of a legislature, it has no power to issue binding laws.”

[290] Webpage: “Membership of the Human Rights Council.” United Nations Human Rights Council. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.ohchr.org>

The Council is made of 47 Member States, which are elected by the majority of members of the General Assembly of the United Nations through direct and secret ballot. The General Assembly takes into account the candidate States’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as their voluntary pledges and commitments in this regard. …

Members of the Council serve for a period of three years and are not eligible for immediate re-election after serving two consecutive terms.

[291] Webpage: “Membership of the Human Rights Council.” United Nations Human Rights Council. Accessed November 2, 2018 at <www.ohchr.org>

The Council’s Membership is based on equitable geographical distribution. Seats are distributed as follows:

1. African States: 13 seats

2. Asia-Pacific States: 13 seats

3. Latin American and Caribbean States: 8 seats

4. Western European and other States: 7 seats

5. Eastern European States: 6 seats

[292] Article: “Human Rights Council Election: 5 Things You Need to Know About It.” United Nations UN News, October 15, 2018. <news.un.org>

How Come Some Countries Accused of Human Rights Violations Still Serve?

[D]uring the elections for each regional group, the General Assembly allows extra blank slates: this should theoretically ensure there are more candidates than available seats, enabling a competitive process. However, if—as was the case this year with 18 candidacies for 18 available seats—no extra countries apply, then no competition occurs, and whichever Member State applies, is likely to get elected.

[293] Article: U.S. Withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council Over Perceived Bias Against Israel.” By Carol Morell. Washington Post, June 19, 2018. <www.washingtonpost.com>

“The United States initially shunned the panel [Human Rights Council] over President George W. Bush’s concerns that so many human rights offenders could be seated through noncompetitive elections for members nominated by their regional colleagues.”

[294] Webpage: “Assessing the United Nations Human Rights Council.” By Ted Piccone. Brookings Institution, May 25, 2017. <www.brookings.edu>

Regional blocs too often put forward clean slates that give the General Assembly no real alternatives. We know that when slates are competitive, the UNGA [UN General Assembly] has voted to deny seats to some of the world’s worst human rights performers….

To address the membership problem, the United States and its democratic allies in the Community of Democracies should redouble their efforts to recruit other like-minded states to run, especially the many electoral democracies that have never sought a seat on the Council. They should build consensus in the GA for new rules that would mandate competitive slates for membership and lead by example in their own regional blocs. … Where regional slates are closed, the United States mission in New York should lead efforts to block the worst offenders from reaching the minimum 97 affirmative votes needed to be elected.

[295] Article: “UN to Elect 6 More Abusers to Rights Council on Friday, NGOs Protest.” UN Watch, October 8, 2018. <www.unwatch.org>

This year there will be no competition in any of the five regional groups, with the same amount of candidates running as there are available seats.

“The whole point of the 2006 reform, initiated by the late UN chief Kofi Annan, was to create competition that would weed out the worst abusers. Sadly, this was never respected, with current elected members including Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Burundi and Venezuela. Yet this year, there is not even the illusion of competition,” said Hillel Neuer of the Geneva-based UN Watch.

Despite the lack of competition in each regional group, Neuer emphasized that there is a myth among UN diplomats that they are obliged to vote for all candidates on a clean slate.

“As made clear in our report, voting nations can and should refrain from electing rights abusers to the UN’s highest human rights body. We need to hear the EU’s Federica Mogherini and EU member states lead the call to oppose the worst abusers. So far, they have been silent.”

[296] “About Us.” Freedom House. Accessed December 5, 2018 at <freedomhouse.org>

“Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world.”

[297] Article: “With New Members, the UN Human Rights Council Goes From Bad to Worse.” By Robert Herman and Michael Gallagher. Freedom House Freedom At Issue, November 19, 2018. <freedomhouse.org>

The October 12 elections for seats on the UN Human Rights Council ushered in several new members with abysmal records on democracy and fundamental human rights. …

According to Freedom in the World, Freedom House’s annual global analysis of political rights and civil liberties, the 46 new and returning council members include 22 countries rated Free, 10 Partly Free countries, and 14 that are considered Not Free. …

Indeed, the proportion of Not Free members, 30 percent, is the highest since the council was established to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2006.

[298] Article: U.S. Withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council Over Perceived Bias Against Israel.” By Carol Morell. Washington Post, June 19, 2018. <www.washingtonpost.com>

“The council’s current membership includes 14 countries that are ranked as ‘not free’ by Freedom House: Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, China, Cuba, Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.”

[299] Report: “Evaluation of UNHRC Candidates for 2019–2021.” UN Watch, 2018. <www.unwatch.org>

Page 1:

This report, co-sponsored by UN Watch, Human Rights Foundation and the Raoul

Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, evaluates the country candidates for the October 12, 2018 election of 18 new members to the UN Human Rights Council. …

Unqualified

Six candidates have poor records and fail to qualify: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Eritrea, Philippines, Somalia

Pages 4–5:

The country evaluations in this report are based on information, ratings and analysis from the following sources:

The Economist Democracy Index (2017), which considers a country’s electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, government functioning, political participation, and political culture, and ranks it as: Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid Regime or Authoritarian Regime.

Reporters Sans Frontières Worldwide Press Freedom Index (2018), which measures the degree of freedom that journalists and news organizations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by state authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom, ranking each country as Good, Fairly Good, Problematic, Bad or Very bad.

Freedom in the World (2018), the annual survey by Freedom House that measures political rights and civil liberties worldwide, ranking countries as: Free, Partly Free or Not Free.

Voting record at the UN General Assembly, examining countries by how they voted at the UN on ten different thematic and country-specific human rights proposals, and classifying their voting records accordingly as either Positive, Negative, or Mixed. Countries were credited with one point for voting to support human rights, debited one point for opposing human rights and given no points for abstaining or being absent. Countries who scored between 4 to 10 are ranked as having Positive voting records; those scoring 0 to 3 are Mixed; and those scoring below zero are Negative.

[300] Press release: “General Assembly Elects 18 Member States to Human Rights Council, Allowing Vote by 3 Member States in Article 19 Exemption Over Financial Dues.” United Nations, October 12, 2018. <www.un.org>

The General Assembly today elected 18 States to the Human Rights Council, the United Nations body responsible for promoting and protecting all human rights around the globe.

By secret ballot, the Assembly elected Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Czechia, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, India, Italy, Philippines, Somalia, Togo and Uruguay.

[301] Report: “Evaluation of UNHRC Candidates for 2019–2021.” UN Watch, 2018. <www.unwatch.org>

Page 2: “Country … Bahrain … FH Rating [=] Not Free … Economist Rating [=] Authoritarian Regime … RSF Rating [=] Very Bad … UN Voting Record [=] Mixed … Suitability for Membership [=] Unqualified”

Page 7:

Bahrain commits serious human rights violations, including:

• Arbitrary killings by security forces

• Torture of detainees

• Harsh and potentially life-threatening prison conditions

• Arbitrary arrest

• Holds political prisoners

• Unlawful interference with privacy

• Restrictions on freedom of expression

• Restrictions on freedom of the press

• Restrictions on freedom of association

• Restrictions on freedom of movement, including arbitrary revocation of citizenship

Pages 8–9:

[O]n June 4, 2017, the Ministry of Information Affairs indefinitely suspended al-Wasat, the only independent newspaper in Bahrain, after it reported on protests in Morocco.11

In April 2017, King Hamad ratified a constitutional amendment allowing military courts to try civilians accused of threatening the security of the state.12 The UN Human Rights Committee expressly criticized this amendment in its recent review of Bahrain.13 In addition, in April 2018, seven UN experts deplored a military court’s imposition of the death penalty on four men charged with terrorism, following coerced confessions and a trial lacking due process.14

In May 2017, police violently suppressed a protest outside the home of Shia Cleric Sheikh Isa Qassim, killing five protesters.15

Bahrain also has clamped down on freedom of speech and freedom of association, and punished dissidents. Activist Nabeel Rajab, head of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, was sentenced to jail time in July 2017 for criticizing the government.18 … Women’s rights activist Ebtisam al-Sayegh was detained and interrogated multiple times in 2017, including upon her return from attending a UN Human Rights Council session. According to al-Sayegh, during one of her interrogations, she was beaten, stripped and sexually assaulted, and her family was threatened.20

In June 2017, UN rights experts sharply criticized Bahrain for resorting to “torture, arbitrary detention, unfounded convictions, the stripping of citizenship, the use of travel bans, intimidation, including death threats, and reprisals for cooperating with international organizations,” as means of curbing dissent.22 In recent concluding observations, both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture criticized Bahrain for frequent use of torture and ill-treatment in prisons, and as a means of eliciting confessions.23

[302] Report: “Evaluation of UNHRC Candidates for 2019–2021.” UN Watch, 2018. <www.unwatch.org>

Page 2: “Country … Bangladesh … FH Rating [=] Partly Free … Economist Rating [=] Hybrid Regime … RSF Rating [=] Bad … UN Voting Record [=] Negative … Suitability for Membership [=] Unqualified”

Page 9:

Bangladesh commits serious human rights violations, including:

• Extrajudicial killings

• Torture

• Arbitrary detention

• Forced disappearances by government forces

• Restrictions on freedom of the speech and the press

• Restrictions on NGOs [non-government organizations]

• Lack of freedom to participate in the political process

• Corruption

• Violence and discrimination against women

• Violence and discrimination against LGBT

• Violence and discrimination based on religion, caste, or tribe

• Trafficking in persons

• Child labor and other violations of worker’s rights

• Widespread impunity for security forces

Page 11:

Bangladesh’s security forces are known to commit extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture. The government frequently justifies extrajudicial killings claiming the suspect died in a “gunfight.” Local human rights agencies estimated that some 160 individuals were killed extrajudicially in 2017. …

… In April, Swedish Radio published a secretly recorded interview with a senior

member of the security forces who admitted to routine instances of murdering suspects and then disposing of the bodies. In July, a judicial inquiry concluded that enforced disappearances occurred and ordered the police to take action.44 The government has not responded to a request for a visit from the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances.

Bangladesh’s UN Voting Record

Negative: At the General Assembly, Bangladesh voted for a resolution denying countries the right to sanction regimes that abuse human rights, and voted to delay the work of the Special Rapporteur on violence against LGBT. While Bangladesh supported the resolution on Myanmar, it failed to support resolutions speaking out for human rights victims in North Korea, Syria and Iran.

[303] Report: “Evaluation of UNHRC Candidates for 2019–2021.” UN Watch, 2018. <www.unwatch.org>

Page 2: “Country … Cameroon … FH Rating [=] Not Free … Economist Rating [=] Authoritarian Regime … RSF Rating [=] Bad … UN Voting Record [=] Negative … Suitability for Membership [=] Unqualified”

Pages 12–13:

Cameroon commits serious human rights violations, including:

• Arbitrary and unlawful killings

• Disappearances by security forces

• Torture and abuse by security forces

• Arbitrary detention

• Harsh and life-threatening prison conditions

• Violations of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly

• Periodic government restrictions on internet access

• Trafficking in persons

• Criminalization and arrest of LGBT

• Violations of worker’s rights

• Corruption …

Cameroon is ruled by President Paul Biya of the Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM) who has governed the country since 1982.46 Though Cameroon holds elections, irregularities are commonplace, including bribery, gerrymandering, and government control of the electoral commission. According to Freedom House, “corruption is systemic and bribery is commonplace in all sectors.”47

… Government forces are accused of numerous violations, including massacring civilians, rape, and burning villages.52 A recent report by Human Rights Watch charges government forces with killing unarmed civilians, including older women and individuals with physical and mental disabilities, arson attacks in at least 20 villages, and mass arrests.53

… Other government tactics against the protesters have included arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and sexual abuse.55

[304] Report: “Evaluation of UNHRC Candidates for 2019–2021.” UN Watch, 2018. <www.unwatch.org>

Page 2: “Country … Eritrea … FH Rating [=] Not Free … Economist Rating [=] Authoritarian Regime … RSF Rating [=] Very Bad … UN Voting Record [=] Negative … Suitability for Membership [=] Unqualified”

Page 14:

Eritrea commits serious human rights violations, including:

• Arbitrary executions

• Enforced disappearances and incommunicado detention

• Torture, and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment

• Harsh prison conditions

• Arbitrary arrest

• Denial of fair public trial

• Arbitrary interference with privacy

• Restrictions on freedom of speech and press

• Restrictions on internet freedom and academic freedom

• Restrictions on freedom of assembly, association, and religion

• Restrictions on freedom of movement

• Lack of free and fair elections

• Corruption

• Restrictions on international NGOs [non-governmental organizations]

• Violence against women and girls

• Human trafficking

• Criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct

• Forced labor …

Eritrea is an authoritarian regime ruled by President Isaias Afwerki, head of the country’s sole political party—The People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ). Eritrea has not held national elections since it became independent from Ethiopia in 1993.61 Though the constitution, ratified in 1997, calls for an elected 150-seat National Assembly, this assembly has not met since 2002.62 Any opposition groups must operate from abroad, as the PFDJ is the only legally recognized political party in Eritrea.63

Eritrea is the subject of an annual Human Rights Council resolution condemning “in the strongest terms the reported systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations” committed by the government in a climate of “generalized impunity.”64 The resolution itemizes numerous human rights abuses including: arbitrary detention, torture, lack of democracy and free press, and indefinite military or national service.

[305] Report: “Evaluation of UNHRC Candidates for 2019–2021.” UN Watch, 2018. <www.unwatch.org>

Page 2: “Country … Philippines … FH Rating [=] Partly Free … Economist Rating [=] Flawed Democracy … RSF Rating [=] Bad … UN Voting Record [=] Negative … Suitability for Membership [=] Unqualified”

Page 16:

The Philippines commits serious human rights violations, including:

• Extrajudicial killings

• Torture and abuse of prisoners

• Harsh and life-threatening prison conditions

• Warrantless arrests and disregard of due process

• Political prisoners

• Killings of and threats against journalists

• Official corruption and abuse of power

• Threats of violence against human rights activists

• Violence against women

• Forced labor

Page 17:

Although the numbers vary based on the source, according to Freedom House, Duterte’s War on Drugs resulted in the killing of more than 12,000 people during the 18 month period from July 2016 to December 2017.86 The US State Department cites the statistic from local Philippines law enforcement agencies which reported approximately 4,000 drug-related deaths in connection with anti-drug operations in that same period.87

In one case on June 30, 2017, police killed Ozamiz City Mayor Reynaldo Parojinog, his wife, and 10 others in anti-drug raids.88 … The Philippines Commission of Human Rights reports routine abuse of prisoners by police and security forces, including use of torture.90

According to Freedom House, The Philippines is one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists with two reporters having been murdered in 2017.92

Page 18:

In March 2018, the government filed a “suspected terrorist” hit list with a Manila Court, listing the names of many civil society activists. Some on the list have already been detained or disappeared.97 UN human rights experts expressed deep concern about this list, which also included the name of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, who had criticized the government.98

… Philippines’ Senator Leila De Lima was arrested in February 2017 and remains in prison on politically motivated charges related to her criticism of President Duterte’s War on Drugs.99 De Lima’s detention has been widely condemned by human rights groups and others who have called for her immediate release.100 President Duterte is also believed to be behind the May 2018 removal of Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. She was removed after Duterte threatened her and called her an “enemy” for voting against several Duterte proposals.101

[306] Report: “Evaluation of UNHRC Candidates for 2019–2021.” UN Watch, 2018. <www.unwatch.org>

Page 2: “Country … Somalia … FH Rating [=] Not Free … Economist Rating [=] N/A … RSF Rating [=] Very Bad … UN Voting Record [=] Negative … Suitability for Membership [=] Unqualified”

Pages 19–20:

Somalia commits serious human rights violations, including:

• Killing of civilians by security forces

• Disappearances

• Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment

• Arbitrary or politically motivated arrest and detentions

• Child soldiers

• Restrictions on free speech, free press and freedom of association

• Abuse of internally displaced persons

• Disruption and seizure of humanitarian assistance

• Lack of free and fair elections

• Trafficking in persons

• Widespread violence against women and girls, including rape and FGM [female genital mutilation]

• Criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct

• Forced labor

Even in the area controlled by the national government, there have never been direct elections. The recent parliamentary elections, concluded in February 2017, saw delegates voted in by clan elders. The elections were characterized by numerous irregularities, including vote-buying, intimidation, threats, violence and kidnapping.104 This was followed by an indirect presidential election, in which the newly elected Parliament selected Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed Farmaajo as president.105

Arbitrary arrests and killings are routinely committed by all actors in Somalia, including government security forces.109

Several groups operating in Somalia, primarily al-Shabaab but also government forces, use child soldiers. …

Women in Somalia are vulnerable to many forms of violence. They are subjected to rape and other sexual violence, including by government forces. …

Somalia’s civilian judiciary is nonfunctional, strongly influenced by corruption and clan-based politics, and not widely respected.118 As a result, military courts try many cases not legally within their jurisdiction, and in proceedings not compliant with international standards for due process.119

[307] Press release: “General Assembly Suspends Libya From Human Rights Council.” United Nations, March 1, 2011. <www.un.org>

“In an unprecedented move today, the United Nations General Assembly suspended Libya’s membership in the Human Rights Council, the Organization’s pre-eminent human rights body, expressing its deep concern about the situation in that country in the wake of Muammar Al-Qadhafi’s violent crackdown on anti-Government protestors.”

[308] Report: “The Human Rights Council: A Practical Guide.” Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations Office, 2015. <www.eda.admin.ch>

Page 6: “The GA [General Assembly] may, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, suspend a member of the Council if it has committed gross and systematic violations of human rights. This has only happened on one occasion to date—when Libya was suspended from 1 March to 19 November 2011 by consensus.”

[309] Report: “The Human Rights Council: A Practical Guide.” Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations Office, 2015. <www.eda.admin.ch>

Pages 8–9:

The HRC [Human Rights Council] holds three regular sessions a year, lasting for a total duration of 10 weeks. These sessions take place in March (main session of four weeks), June (three weeks) and September (three weeks). Each regular session systematically follows an order of the day consisting of ten agenda items: …

Item 7: Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. This is the only country-based situation to feature as a permanent item on the order of the day (other situations are examined under items 4 or 10, and, by way of exception, under item 2). Item 7 focuses on the impact of the Israeli occupation on human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories (see e.g. A/HRC/RES/19/16). The question of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is also dealt with under this item (see e.g. A/HRC/RES/19/15).

[310] Press Release: “Opposition to UN Human Rights Council Agenda Item Seven.” U.S. Department of State, March 20, 2017. <www.state.gov>

The United States strongly and unequivocally opposes the existence of the UN Human Rights Council’s Agenda Item Seven: “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.” Today’s actions in the Council are yet another reminder of that body’s long-standing bias against Israel. No other nation has an entire agenda item dedicated to it at the Council. The continued existence of this agenda item is among the largest threats to the credibility of the Council.

As an expression of our deeply-held conviction that this bias must be addressed in order for the Council to realize its legitimate purpose, the United States decided not to attend the Council’s Item Seven General Debate session. It does not serve the interests of the Council to single out one country in an unbalanced matter. Later this week, the United States will vote against every resolution put forth under this agenda item and is encouraging other countries to do the same.

[311] “Remarks on the Human Rights Council.” By Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley. U.S. Department of State, June 19, 2018. <www.state.gov>

Worse than that, the Human Rights Council has become an exercise in shameless hypocrisy—with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored, and some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself. …

A mere look around the world today demonstrates that the council has failed in its stated objectives.

Its membership includes authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela.

There is no fair or competitive election process, and countries have colluded with one another to undermine the current method of selecting members.

And the council’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel is unconscionable. Since its creation, the council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined.

[312] Article: “US Withdraws from UN Human Rights Council.” By Conor Finnegan. ABC News, June 19, 2018. <abcnews.go.com>

The U.S. will withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley announced Tuesday. …

After repeated warnings by the Trump administration, Haley said, “Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded.”

The administration has argued that the body, which issues a report on Israel at every session, is inherently biased against the U.S. ally. But it’s also criticized it for including repressive regimes among its ranks and not speaking out against member states.

[313] Article: “U.S. Withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council Over Perceived Bias Against Israel.” By Carol Morell. Washington Post, June 19, 2018. <www.washingtonpost.com>

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

A year ago, she [Haley] denigrated it as a “forum for politics, hypocrisy and evasion,” and threatened a U.S. exit if the council did not kick out abusive regimes and remove Item 7, the standing resolution critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

[314] Resolution 60/1: “2005 World Summit Outcome.” United Nations General Assembly, September 16, 2005. <undocs.org>

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to those assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

[315] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 1, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 2

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. …

Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. …

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

[316] Resolution 418. United Nations Security Council, November 4, 1977. <undocs.org>

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolution 392 (1976) of 19 June 1976, strongly condemning the South African Government for its resort to massive violence against and killings of the African people, including schoolchildren and students and others opposing racial discrimination, and calling upon that Government urgently to end violence against the African people and to take urgent steps to eliminate apartheid and racial discrimination …

Strongly condemning the South African Government for its acts of repression, its defiant continuance of the system of apartheid and its attacks against neighbouring independent States …

Acting therefore upon Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, … decides that all States shall cease forthwith any provision to South Africa of arms and related material of all types, including the sale or transfer of weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary police equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and shall cease as well the provision of all types of equipment and supplies and grants of licensing arrangements for the manufacture or maintenance of the aforementioned.

[317] Resolution 1556. United Nations Security Council, July 30, 2004. <unscr.com>

The Security Council …

Reiterating its grave concern at the ongoing humanitarian crisis and widespread human rights violations, including continued attacks on civilians that are placing the lives of hundreds of thousands at risk,

Condemning all acts of violence and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by all parties to the crisis, in particular by the Janjaweed, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, rapes, forced displacements, and acts of violence especially those with an ethnic dimension, and expressing its utmost concern at the consequences of the conflict in Darfur on the civilian population, including women, children, internally displaced persons, and refugees,

Recalling in this regard that the Government of Sudan bears the primary responsibility to respect human rights while maintaining law and order and protecting its population within its territory and that all parties are obliged to respect international humanitarian law,

Urging all the parties to take the necessary steps to prevent and put an end to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and underlining that there will be no impunity for violators,

Welcoming the commitment by the Government of Sudan to investigate the atrocities and prosecute those responsible …

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations …

Decides that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent the sale or supply, to all non-governmental entities and individuals, including the Janjaweed, operating in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories;

Decides that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent any provision to the non-governmental entities and individuals identified in paragraph 7 operating in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur by their nationals or from their territories of technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in paragraph 7 above….

[318] Resolution 1591. United Nations Security Council, March 29, 2005. <unscr.com>

The Security Council …

Strongly condemning all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Darfur region, in particular the continuation of violence against civilians and sexual violence against women and girls since the adoption of resolution 1574 (2004), urging all parties to take necessary steps to prevent further violations, and expressing its determination to ensure that those responsible for all such violations are identified and brought to justice without delay …

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations … condemns … the failure of the Government of Sudan to disarm Janjaweed militiamen and apprehend and bring to justice Janajaweed leaders and their associates who have carried out human rights and international humanitarian law violations and other atrocities …

Decides, in light of the failure of all parties to the conflict in Darfur to fulfil their commitments …

(c) that those individuals … who … commit violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or other atrocities … shall be subject to the measures identified in subparagraphs (d) and (e) below …

(d) that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent entry into or transit through their territories of all persons as designated by the Committee pursuant to subparagraph (c) above …

(e) that all States shall freeze all funds, financial assets and economic resources … that are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the persons designated by the Committee pursuant to subparagraph (c) above …

Reaffirms the measures imposed by … resolution 1556 (2004), and decides that these measures shall immediately upon adoption of this resolution, also apply to all the parties to the N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement and any other belligerents in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur….

[319] Resolution 1970. United Nations Security Council, February 26, 2011. <undocs.org>

The Security Council …

Deploring the gross and systematic violation of human rights …

Recalling the Libyan authorities’ responsibility to protect its population …

Decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya … of arms and related material of all types, …

Decides that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya shall cease the export of all arms and related material, …

Decides to authorize all Member States to, and that all Member States shall, upon discovery of items prohibited … seize and dispose … items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by … this resolution; …

Decides that all Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals listed in Annex I of this resolution …

Decides that all Member States shall freeze without delay all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the individuals or entities listed in annex II of this resolution….

[320] Resolution 1973. United Nations Security Council, March 17, 2011. <undocs.org>

The Security Council …

Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians, condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, …

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi….

[321] Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are: …

3 To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion….

[322] Webpage: “What We Do.” United Nations Refugee Agency. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.unhcr.org>

We strive to ensure that everyone has the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to eventually return home, integrate or resettle.

During times of displacement, we provide critical emergency assistance in the form of clean water, sanitation and healthcare, as well as shelter, blankets, household goods and sometimes food. We also arrange transport and assistance packages for people who return home, and income-generating projects for those who resettle.

[323] Webpage: “Deliver Humanitarian Aid.” United Nations. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“Since its beginning, The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has strived to reach as many children as possible with effective, low-cost solutions to counter the biggest threats to their survival. UNICEF also consistently urges governments and warring parties to act more effectively to protect children.”

[324] Webpage: “What We Do.” United Nations Children’s Fund. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.unicef.org>

UNICEF works in 190 countries and territories to save children’s lives, to defend their rights, and to help them fulfil their potential, from early childhood through adolescence. … UNICEF works with partners around the world to promote policies and expand access to services that protect all children. … UNICEF is on the ground before, during, and after emergencies, working to reach children and families with lifesaving aid and long-term assistance.

[325] Webpage: “Deliver Humanitarian Aid.” United Nations. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The World Food Programme (WFP) provides relief to millions of people, who are victims of disasters. It is responsible for mobilizing food and funds for transport for all large-scale refugee-feeding operations managed by UNHCR [UN Refugee Agency].”

[326] Webpage: “Overview.” World Food Programme. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www1.wfp.org>

Assisting 91.4 million people in around 83 countries each year, the World Food Programme (WFP) is the leading humanitarian organization saving lives and changing lives, delivering food assistance in emergencies and working with communities to improve nutrition and build resilience. …

On any given day, WFP has 5,000 trucks, 20 ships and 92 planes on the move, delivering food and other assistance to those in most need.

[327] Webpage: “Deliver Humanitarian Aid.” United Nations. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“UNDP [United Nations Development Program] is the agency responsible for operational activities for natural disaster mitigation, prevention and preparedness. When emergencies occur, UNDP Resident Coordinators coordinate relief and rehabilitation efforts at the national level.”

[328] Webpage: “Crisis Response: How We Do It.” United Nations Development Programme. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.undp.org>

Our crisis response toolbox includes fast deployment of first responders and planning teams for recovery, post-disaster and post-conflict needs assessments; and fast-track procedures for procurement and operational support. Management is centralized through UNDP’s [United Nations Development Program] Crisis Response Unit to ensure effective coordination, a strong whole-of-UNDP approach, and consistent engagement with humanitarian actors.

A key feature of the toolbox, Crisis Response Packages enable us to deliver concrete actions on the ground within a few hours of the onset of a crisis. They ensure that resilience-building begins immediately and simultaneously with humanitarian activities, as agreed during the World Humanitarian Summit.

Our tailored crisis response packages help :

• restore core government functions

• stabilize livelihoods

• manage debris and rehabilitate Infrastructure

• plan recovery

[329] Webpage: “Deliver Humanitarian Aid.” United Nations. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The World Health Organization (WHO) coordinates the international response to humanitarian health emergencies. WHO is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends.

[330] Webpage: “Humanitarian Health Action.” World Health Organization. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.who.int>

“WHO [World Health Organization] operates in more than 40 countries dealing with humanitarian health emergencies of all kinds ranging from disease outbreaks to conflicts to natural disasters.”

[331] Webpage: “Deliver Humanitarian Aid.” United Nations. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) of the UN Secretariat is responsible for coordinating responses to emergencies.”

[332] Webpage: “Who We Are.” United Nations, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] is the part of the United Nations Secretariat responsible for bringing together humanitarian actors to ensure a coherent response to emergencies. OCHA also ensures there is a framework within which each actor can contribute to the overall response effort. …

OCHA coordinates humanitarian action to ensure crisis-affected people receive the assistance and protection they need. It works to overcome obstacles that impede humanitarian assistance from reaching people affected by crises, and it provides leadership in mobilizing assistance and resources on behalf of the humanitarian system. OCHA is not an operational agency directly engaged in the delivery of humanitarian programmes, and its added value is as an honest broker, facilitator, thought leader and global advocate, providing support to the humanitarian system.

[333] Webpage: “Who We Are.” United Nations, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] carries out its coordination function primarily through the IASC [Inter-Agency Standing Committee], which is chaired by the ERC [Emergency Relief Coordinator]. Participants include all humanitarian partners, from United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, to the Red Cross movement and NGOs [non-government organizations]. The IASC ensures inter-agency decision-making in response to complex emergencies. These responses include needs assessments, consolidated appeals, field coordination arrangements and the development of humanitarian policies.

[334] Webpage: “Inter-Agency Standing Committee.” United Nations, Central Emergency Response Fund. Accessed December 6, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) brings together international organizations working to provide humanitarian assistance to people in need as a result of natural disasters, conflict-related emergencies, global food crises and pandemics. By coordinating activities, members improve overall service delivery, share resources, pool analysis and disseminate best practices. Participants use the forum to agree on system-wide policies to achieve a better overall response, while respecting organizations’ individual mandates.

Established by UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/46/182 in 1991, the IASC is the only decision-making group that includes UN agencies, the World Bank, the International Organization for Migration and other humanitarian organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and non-governmental organizations. In other words, the IASC includes many of the largest humanitarian organizations that account for the majority of humanitarian assistance distributed worldwide.

[335] Webpage: “About IASC.” Inter-Agency Standing Committee. Accessed December 6, 2018 at <interagencystandingcommittee.org>

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) is a unique inter-agency forum for coordination, policy development and decision-making involving the key UN and non-UN humanitarian partners. … Under the leadership of the Emergency Relief Coordinator, the IASC develops humanitarian policies, agrees on a clear division of responsibility for the various aspects of humanitarian assistance, identifies and addresses gaps in response, and advocates for effective application of humanitarian principles. …

The overall objective of the IASC is to improve delivery of humanitarian assistance, including the protection of the rights of affected people. The primary objectives of the IASC in complex and major emergencies are as follows:

• To develop and agree on system-wide humanitarian policies;

• To allocate responsibilities amongst agencies in humanitarian programmes;

• To develop and agree on a common ethical framework for all humanitarian activities;

• To advocate common humanitarian principles to parties outside the IASC;

• To advocate for the full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and spirit of the relevant bodies of law (i.e. international human rights law, international humanitarian law and refugee law);

• To identify and address areas where gaps in mandates or lack of operational capacity exist; and,

• To resolve disputes or disagreements about and amongst humanitarian agencies on system-wide humanitarian issues.

[336] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2019.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 4, 2018. <reliefweb.int>

Pages 12–13:

Most humanitarian crises are not the product of any single factor or event, but of the interaction between natural hazards, armed conflict and human vulnerability.

People’s vulnerability to crises is not just about where they live, but also about how they live. … Although development gains are being made, progress has been uneven. The rate of extreme poverty remains high in low-income countries and in countries affected by conflict. Crises have disproportionate consequences for the poor: people exposed to natural hazards in the poorest nations are at least seven times more likely to die from them than those in the richest nations. …

… Today, an estimated 2 billion people live in fragile and conflict-affected areas of the word,3 where they are extremely vulnerable to the impact of conflicts and disasters.

Page 14: “By the end of 2017, war, violence and persecution had uprooted 68.5 million men, women and children around the world—the highest number on record, and nearly 10 million more people than in 2014.”

Page 15: “Climate-related disasters including floods, storms and droughts account for more than 90 percent of the world’s disasters and affect the greatest number of people. Between 2014 and 2017, floods were the most prevalent type of natural disaster….”

Page 16: “Countries with the highest levels of undernourishment tend to be those recently or currently experiencing violent conflict, which disrupts food production and undermines agricultural development.”

Page 24: “As fighting endures, so does humanitarian need. … In almost all conflict-affected countries and in some other countries, diseases and epidemics, such as cholera, associated with lack of proper water, sanitation and health services, are causing malnutrition and contributing to deaths that could have been prevented.”

[337] Article: “US$21.9 Billion Needed in 2019 as Average Length of Humanitarian Crises Climbs.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 4, 2018. <www.unocha.org>

Global Trends and Challenges

The extremely high levels of humanitarian need in 2018 were triggered by some key factors:

Conflict

More people are being displaced by conflict. The number of forcibly displaced people rose from 59.5 million in 2014 to 68.5 million in 2017. Crises exacerbate gender inequalities. Girls in conflict settings are 2.5 times more likely to be out of school than boys.

Cost of Natural Disasters

Natural disasters and climate change have a high human cost. Disasters affect 350 million people on average each year and cause billions of dollars of damage.

[338] “Report of the Secretary-General: Strengthening of the Coordination of Emergency Humanitarian Assistance of the United Nations.” United Nations General Assembly, April 9, 2018. <undocs.org>

Page 2: “Humanitarian emergencies fueled by conflicts and disasters associated with natural hazards once again drove humanitarian needs to a new high in 2017.”

[339] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2018.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 2017. <www.unocha.org>

Page 3:

In 2018

• Overall, 136 million people across the world will need humanitarian assistance and protection.

• UN-coordinated response plans costed at $22.5 billion can help 91 million.

Pages 26–27:

Humanitarian Response Plans Around The Globe

21 Humanitarian Response Plans

4 Regional Refugee Response Plans

5 Other Appeals

[340] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2019.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 4, 2018. <reliefweb.int>

Pages 8–9:

Humanitarian Needs and Funding Results in 2018

Funding Received

$13.87B

[341] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2018.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 2017. <www.unocha.org>

Page 3:

Reviewing 2017

Donors provided record levels of funding to Humanitarian Response Plans—nearly $14 billion by the end of November. …

In 2018

The overall number of people in need is more than 5% higher than in the 2017 GHO [Global Humanitarian Overview].

[342] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2019.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 4, 2018. <reliefweb.int>

Page 4:

Humanitarian crises affect more people, for longer. The number of people targeted to receive assistance through UN-led humanitarian response plans (HRPs) increased from 77 million in 2014 to 101 million in 2018. …

2018 is on track to be another record year for humanitarian funding. As of 19 November, donors and partners have reported contributions of $13.9 billion to HRPs, compared with $12.6 billion at the same time last year. …

Global humanitarian funding has reached a new high of $22 billion, surpassing the $21.5 billion raised in 2017.

[343] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2018.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 2017. <www.unocha.org>

Page 4: “Conflict—in particular protracted crises—will continue to be the main driver of need in 2018. All but two of the 2018 humanitarian response plans are for situations that have a major element of conflict.”

[344] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2019.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 4, 2018. <reliefweb.int>

Pages 12–13:

People’s vulnerability to crises is not just about where they live, but also about how they live. … Although development gains are being made, progress has been uneven. The rate of extreme poverty remains high in low-income countries and in countries affected by conflict. Crises have disproportionate consequences for the poor: people exposed to natural hazards in the poorest nations are at least seven times more likely to die from them than those in the richest nations. …

… Today, an estimated 2 billion people live in fragile and conflict-affected areas of the word,3 where they are extremely vulnerable to the impact of conflicts and disasters.

Page 18: “In recent years, protracted crises have become further entrenched. In response, humanitarian organizations are staying longer and aiming to reach more people. The average length of HRPs [humanitarian response plans] has increased from 5.2 years in 2014 to 9.3 years in 2018.”

Page 23:

Conflict will remain the main driver of humanitarian needs in 2019. Fragile and conflict-affected countries are likely to lag behind on most human development indicators, including levels of poverty, malnutrition, access to essential services and social rights. …

In these situations … humanitarian assistance is a vital lifeline, but it is not enough to reduce humanitarian need. Stronger efforts at conflict prevention and resolution are of the utmost priority, as is earlier and faster development to reduce vulnerability and help people become more resilient.

Page 24: “As fighting endures, so does humanitarian need. … In almost all conflict-affected countries and in some other countries, diseases and epidemics, such as cholera, associated with lack of proper water, sanitation and health services, are causing malnutrition and contributing to deaths that could have been prevented.”

Page 42: “The scale of humanitarian need in the MENA [Middle East and North Africa] region is the result of a failure to address the root causes of these devastating crises. The humanitarian community will continue to advocate for lasting political solutions to conflict, which is the only way to sustainably alleviate the suffering of millions of civilians.”

[345] Webpage: “Changing People’s Lives: From Delivering Aid to Ending Need, High-Level Leaders’ Roundtable.” United Nations World Humanitarian Summit, May 2016. <www.agendaforhumanity.org>

Tens of millions of people live in acute humanitarian need. Many millions more are vulnerable to socioeconomic shocks including conflict and natural hazards. While the existing aid model brings relief and advancement to many, too many people face protracted and recurrent crises that leave them dependent on aid or at risk of new or worsening shocks. …

Nothing should undermine the commitment to principled humanitarian action, especially in politically contested and violent conditions of armed conflict. Humanitarians must stand ready to deliver predictable, principled assistance and protection where it is needed. There is at the same time a shared moral imperative of preventing crises and sustainably reducing people’s levels of humanitarian need.

… The underlying shift places people at the center, by asking what it would take to reduce people’s risk and vulnerability and improve their development prospects, and then charting a course for collaboration with a diverse group of actors to achieve it.

Recognizing that the particular shape of new way of working will be determined by context, the approach aims to meet immediate needs in times of crisis, while also working actively to move people out of crises and on to a path toward the achievement of the 2030 Agenda.

[346] Webpage: “Meetings Coverage: Increased Humanitarian Aid, Tackling Root Causes of Conflict Key to Ending Famine in South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Secretary-General Tells Security Council.” United Nations Security Council, October 12, 2017. <www.un.org>

Sounding the alarm on famine exacerbated by conflict, Secretary-General António Guterres urged the international community to step up efforts to end violence, ensure humanitarian assistance and foster long-term development in South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen and other areas of instability-rooted starvation.

Speaking in the Security Council this afternoon, he declared: “Until these conflicts are resolved and development takes root, communities and entire regions will continue to be ravaged by hunger and suffering.” …

Delegates also agreed that the achievement of sustainable development must be stepped up to eradicate the root causes of conflict and stem famine, while the collaboration of parties to conflict, the United Nations, regional organizations and all partners must be utilized to prevent and end conflicts.

[347] “Report of the Secretary-General: Strengthening of the Coordination of Emergency Humanitarian Assistance of the United Nations.” United Nations General Assembly, April 9, 2018. <undocs.org>

Page 11:

The multidimensional and complex nature of major crises point to the necessity for closer humanitarian and development collaboration. Such collaboration helps to bridge the gap between emergency relief and development aid and enables a shift from meeting immediate humanitarian needs to reducing the risks, vulnerability and needs of the populations affected. Stronger and more effective humanitarian and development collaboration will contribute to prevention, resilience and capacity-building and to sustaining peace, in line with the ongoing reforms of the United Nations. In this regard, momentum towards operationalizing the new way of working across humanitarian and development activities, with a focus on improving collective outcomes at the country level, is critical. It is important that humanitarian assistance be provided in a way that contributes to better development outcomes, whereas development action must focus more on reducing risk and vulnerability.

[348] Article: “Understanding L3 Emergencies.” By Chase Sova. World Food Program USA, December 6, 2016. <www.wfpusa.org>

For humanitarian agencies like the World Food Programme (WFP) that must respond to multiple emergencies in more than one country, a classification system is used to determine which crises require the most resources. The most severe emergencies are classified as “Level 3,” or “L3” for short. …

A system-wide L3 emergency is declared by a committee of United Nations (U.N.) and non-U.N. global humanitarian agencies [Inter-Agency Standing Committee] to ensure that the appropriate leadership structures are put in place for a coordinated, global response to a large-scale event. This need occurs most often when a crisis changes suddenly and significantly, requiring ramped-up efforts on multiple fronts—food, health, support to refugees, and so on. To make this determination, the committee considers the scale, complexity, urgency, capacity and reputational risk involved with the crisis.

[349] Webpage: “Transformative Agenda (IASC).” United Nations Refugee Agency. Accessed December 6, 2018 at <emergency.unhcr.org>

The TA [Transformative Agenda] created a set of procedures for a collective response to humanitarian crises. Central to the TA is the declaration of a “Level 3”(L3) emergency, which is a major sudden-onset humanitarian crisis, triggered by natural disaster or conflict that requires a system-wide mobilization and response, as determined collectively by the IASC [Inter-Agency Standing Committee] Principals under the leadership of the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC).

[350] Webpage: “Current Emergencies.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 16, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

System-Wide Level 3 (L3) Responses

As part of its global presence, which includes country and regional offices across the globe, OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] supports IASC [Inter-Agency Standing Committee] Level 3 (or L3) Responses. L3 Responses are activated in the most complex and challenging humanitarian emergencies, when the highest level of mobilization is required, across the humanitarian system, to ensure that the right capacities and systems are place to effectively meet needs.

[351] “Annual Report 2017.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, June 11, 2018. <www.unocha.org>

Page 10:

In 2017, the humanitarian aid system dealt with four Level 3 emergencies (DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], Iraq, Syria and Yemen)….

An Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Humanitarian System-Wide Emergency Response, more commonly referred to as an L3 emergency response, is activated when a humanitarian situation suddenly and significantly changes and the required capacity to lead, coordinate and deliver humanitarian assistance and protection is not available on the ground.

[352] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2018.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 2017. <www.unocha.org>

Page 39:

Syria

Seven years into the conflict, civilians in many parts of Syria continue to endure unprecedented violence, suffering, and protection threats. Amid continuing fighting in many parts of the country, high levels of civilian casualties continue to be reported and point to violations and abuses of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including indiscriminate, disproportionate and unrestrained attacks.

Some 13.1 million people require humanitarian aid, including nearly three million people trapped in UN-declared besieged and hard-to-reach areas across conflict lines. An estimated 6.1 million people are internally displaced—many multiple times—while another 5.5 million Syrians are registered as refugees in neighbouring countries and beyond, amounting to one of the world’s largest displacement crises.

[353] Article: “2018 Worst Year in Syria’s Humanitarian Crisis: U.N. Official.” By Lisa Barrington. Reuters, May 18, 2018. <www.reuters.com>

“The humanitarian crisis in Syria is worse this year than ever before in the country’s seven-year-old civil war, a United Nations official said on Friday.”

[354] “Annual Report 2017.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, June 11, 2018. <www.unocha.org>

Page 12:

The Iraq operation remained complex and volatile in 2017. Half of the almost 6 million people forced to flee their homes since 2014 remained displaced. The nine-month military offensive in Mosul (from October 2016 to July 2017) against ISIL [Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant] displaced almost 1 million people and led to OCHA’s establishment of the Humanitarian Operations Centre in Erbil to coordinate partners’ response….

[355] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2018.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 2017. <www.unocha.org>

Page 33:

Iraq’s humanitarian crisis is one of the most volatile in the world. Although large-scale military operations against ISIL [Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant] are expected to conclude by the end of 2017, the humanitarian crisis will continue through 2018, if not longer, putting millions of Iraqi civilians at risk.

In the months ahead, protection problems are expected to impact millions of people as families and communities grapple with post-conflict realities. New sources of instability are likely to emerge, linked to delays in reconciliation and political tensions, including in disputed areas.

Displaced families living in camps and substandard accommodation remain highly vulnerable and will require substantial assistance to meet their basic needs. Hundreds of thousands of people, including women and children, have been brutalized by the conflict. They are likely to require specialized support and care for years.

As many as two million displaced Iraqis, possibly more, are likely to return to their homes during 2018. Conditions in retaken areas vary; damage to public infrastructure is extensive and some areas are heavily contaminated by mines and unexploded ordnance. Although the Government’s social protection floor is being re-established in retaken areas, many destitute families are not yet receiving the assistance they need to restart their lives.

[356] Webpage: “About OCHA Yemen.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 16, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

After more than three years of escalating conflict, Yemeni people continue to bear the brunt of ongoing hostilities and severe economic decline. An alarming 22.2 million people in Yemen need some kind of humanitarian or protection assistance, an estimated 17.8 million are food insecure—8.4 million people are severely food insecure and at risk of starvation—16 million lack access to safe water and sanitation, and 16.4 million lack access to adequate healthcare. Needs across the country have increased steadily, with 11.3 million who are in acute need—an increase of more than one million people in acute need of humanitarian assistance to survive.

[357] “Annual Report 2017.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, June 11, 2018. <www.unocha.org>

Page 14:

With more than 17 million people—two of every three people—not knowing where their next meal will come from, Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. In 2017, OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] Yemen scaled up its operations to support expanding relief efforts across the country. Working with about 190 humanitarian partners, OCHA coordinated assistance to more than 7 million people—an increase from about 5.6 million people in 2016.

[358] Article: “Key Facts About the War in Yemen.” Al Jazeera, March 25, 2018. <www.aljazeera.com>

“For three years, Yemen, the Arab world's poorest country, has been wracked by a bloody war between the Houthi rebels and supporters of Yemen’s internationally recognised government.”

[359] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2018.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 2017. <www.unocha.org>

Page 31:

The crisis in the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] has deepened and spread, affecting people in areas previously considered stable and stretching the coping mechanisms of people in areas already impacted.

This rapid deterioration … is taking place against the backdrop of one of the world’s largest and most complex humanitarian crises. Across the DRC, at least 13.1 million people need humanitarian assistance and protection—an increase of 79% from the start of 2017. This includes 7.7 million severely food-insecure people and close to 2 million severely malnourished children. Epidemics and outbreaks of communicable diseases, including cholera, affect tens of thousands of people every year. Millions of Congolese bear the brunt, which is characterized by worsening inter-ethnic tensions and conflict and where widespread human rights abuses, including sexual violence, are a defining feature.

[360] “Annual Report 2017.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, June 11, 2018. <www.unocha.org>

Page 11: “The humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) deteriorated drastically in 2017, with the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance almost doubling from 7.3 million to 13.1 million. … DRC also hosts 540,000 refugees from neighbouring countries.”

[361] Webpage: “Current Emergencies.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 16, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

“When the USG/ERC [Under-Secretary-General/Emergency Response Coordinator] declares a Corporate Emergency Response, all OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] offices, branches and sections provide their full support to response activities both at HQ and in the field.”

[362] “Annual Report 2017.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, June 11, 2018. <www.unocha.org>

Page 10: “In 2017, the humanitarian aid system dealt with … four corporate emergencies (Rohingya crisis, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Somalia). … Corporate emergencies are rapid-onset or rapidly escalating crises requiring OCHA’s [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] highest level of response.”

[363] Article: “Understanding L3 Emergencies.” By Chase Sova. World Food Program USA, December 6, 2016. <www.wfpusa.org>

The most severe emergencies are classified as “Level 3,” or “L3” for short. … But there are actually two types of L3 emergencies: L3 emergencies across the U.N. system, which apply to most humanitarian organizations worldwide; and corporate L3 emergencies that pertain only to a specific agency like the World Food Programme (WFP). … For example, slow-onset disasters like the El Niño-induced drought in Southern Africa—a WFP L3 emergency, but not a system-wide emergency—may overwhelm the capacities of WFP country offices and regional bureaus, yet may not meet the system-wide L3 criteria for urgency, scale and complexity brought on by sudden-onset and quickly changing emergencies.

[364] Webpage: “About OCHA Ethiopia.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 19, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

While reeling from the impact of the 2017 Indian Ocean Dipole-induced drought, exacerbated by disease outbreaks, large scale loss of livelihood assets and displacement, southern and south-eastern Ethiopia also suffered below average spring (February–May) rains in 2017, the third consecutive poor/failed rains in the southern drought belt. This had left at least 8.5 million people in need of relief food assistance by mid-year, up from 5.6 million in January 2017. In addition to the 8.5 million relief food beneficiaries, the humanitarian operation in the second half of the year provided continued assistance to 4 million “public works clients” of the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP).

The humanitarian situation was further exacerbated by an upsurge in conflict around the border areas of Oromia and Somali regions, since early September 2017. Over the course of the following months, the conflict has left hundreds of thousands displaced, often in areas already experiencing ongoing drought-related humanitarian need. Nearly all districts along the regional borders were affected. The latest round of IOM Displacement Tracking Matrix conducted in November – December 2017 indicates that around 1 million persons have been displaced due to conflict along the Oromia-Somali regional border (nearly 700,000 in 2017 alone, with a significant spike after September 2017). …

Released on 29 December 2017, the “Alert: Immediate 2018 Humanitarian Requirements for Ethiopia” document warns of continuing acute food insecurity of up to 7 million people, malnutrition and water shortages in the pastoralist and agro-pastoralist southern and south-eastern lowlands and outlines immediate humanitarian priorities, costed at an estimated $895 million. …

There are currently over 79 humanitarian organizations operating in Ethiopia supporting the Government-led response.

[365] Webpage: “Ethiopia.” U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, July 19, 2018. <www.state.gov>

All land in Ethiopia belongs to “the people” and is administered by the government. Private ownership does not exist, but “land-use rights” have been registered in most populated areas. The government retains the right to expropriate land for the “common good,” which it defines to include expropriation for commercial farms, industrial zones, and infrastructure development. While the government claims to allocate only sparsely settled or “empty” land to investors, some people have been resettled. In particular, traditional grazing land has often been considered “empty” and expropriated, leading to resentment, protests and, in some cases, conflict. Confusion with respect to registration of urban land-use rights, particularly in Addis Ababa, is commonplace. Likewise, allegations of corruption in the allocation of urban land to private investors by government agencies are a root cause of popular discontent. Successful investors in Ethiopia conduct thorough due diligence on land title at both state and federal levels, and undertake consultations with local communities regarding the proposed use of the land.

[366] Article: “Aid Community Silenced in Ethiopia.” By Rebecca Root. Devex, December 14, 2018. <www.devex.com>

Yirga [a senior human rights officer with the Ethiopian Human Rights Council] said the issue goes deeper. “There is mass displacement because of the government.” He says particularly in the Gambella region, the government has forced families to leave their homes so the land—which is state-owned in Ethiopia—can be used for other purposes. Yirga said the government doesn’t want to be blamed for the high numbers of people now living in underserved camps and this is more easily avoided if the issue isn’t in the spotlight.

[367] Report: “Development Without Freedom: How Aid Underwrites Repression in Ethiopia.” Human Rights Watch, October 2010. <reliefweb.int>

Page 17:

For example, kebele officials control access to land, even though it is supposed to be periodically redistributed so that adults who want to cultivate will get their fair share. As a result, local officials can both deprive farmers at any time of legal access to their farms and harvest the land they cultivated, without any real possibility to appeal.

… As one kebele official said during the 2000 elections, “You are voting for the opposition? All right, ask your party to give you land. The constitution says the state owns the rural land. We don’t give land to those who are not loyal to us.”21

[368] Webpage: “About OCHA Somalia.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 19, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

The collective response by national and international humanitarian partners when alarms were raised of a possible famine in January 2017, demonstrated a clear commitment to never again let a famine unfold in Somalia. Humanitarian assistance was scaled-up massively and a famine was averted. The unprecedented drought spanning over four consecutive poor rainy seasons has, however, severely aggravated the crisis. Humanitarian needs persist due to climatic shock, large-scale displacement, lack of access to basic services and, at its root, ongoing conflict.

The humanitarian crisis in Somalia is among the most complex and longstanding emergencies in the world.

[369] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2018.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 2017. <www.unocha.org>

Page 18:

The 2017 HRP [Humanitarian Response Plan] requested $864 million. However, after the HRP was issued, the humanitarian situation in Somalia rapidly deteriorated due to drought, while the threat of a severe famine loomed. The Operational Plan for Famine Prevention was launched in February and was later consolidated into the revised HRP, which increased to $1.5 billion to scale up famine prevention efforts. Approximately 6.7 million people, over half of the population, required humanitarian assistance.

[370] Report: “Evaluation of UNHRC Candidates for 2019–2021.” UN Watch, 2018. <www.unwatch.org>

Pages 19–20:

Somalia commits serious human rights violations, including: …

• Abuse of internally displaced persons

• Disruption and seizure of humanitarian assistance …

Even in the area controlled by the national government, there have never been direct elections.

[371] Webpage: “Somalia.” U.S. Agency for International Development. Last updated October 24, 2018. <www.usaid.gov>

Armed groups—including militant group al-Shabaab—continue to attack civilians, forcibly conscript children, and interfere with humanitarian operations in Somalia. Relief agencies are providing life-saving assistance to vulnerable populations, as security and access conditions allow. …

Since 1991, Somalia has experienced a persistent complex emergency due to chronic food insecurity, widespread violence, and recurrent droughts and floods. …

Despite modest improvements in recent years, malnutrition rates in Somalia remain among the highest in the world, and ongoing insecurity in the country—particularly in areas that lack established local authorities and where al-Shabaab is present—contributes to the complex emergency.

[372] “World Report 2018: Events of 2017.” Human Rights Watch, 2017. <www.hrw.org>

Page 485:

According to the UN, 1 million people were newly displaced in 2017, bringing the total internally displaced persons (IDP) population to 2.1 million. Many faced dire living conditions, with limited assistance, and faced a range of abuses, including indiscriminate killings, forced evictions, and sexual violence. Between November and May, at least 60,000 people were forcibly evicted, including by government forces. …

Al-Shabab banned most nongovernmental organizations and all UN agencies from areas under its control. It also imposed blockades on government-controlled towns and on occasion attacked civilians who broke them.

Government forces and clan militia also extorted civilians and aid convoys at checkpoints.

[373] “Annual Report 2017.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, June 11, 2018. <www.unocha.org>

Page 17:

The conflict between Boko Haram and the Nigerian military in north-east Nigeria has affected more than 8.5 million people in the most-affected states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe. The conflict has led to forced displacement, acute food and nutrition insecurity, and serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

To improve the quality of humanitarian response in hard-to-reach areas in Borno state, OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] established local coordination groups in 12 deep-field locations, and it trained partners on coordination, humanitarian principles and basic protection from sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA) principles.

OCHA supported the development of key strategies, including the 2018 HNO/HRP [Humanitarian Needs Overview/Humanitarian Response Plan]. It also facilitated the establishment of four humanitarian hubs in hard-to-reach areas and the massive scale-up of humanitarian assistance, averting the risk of famine and enabling the rapid containment of a cholera outbreak.

[374] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2018.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 2017. <www.unocha.org>

Page 36: “Nigeria is bearing the brunt of the Lake Chad Basin crisis. … In 2017, humanitarian response was significantly scaled up to meet redoubled needs, and helped avert a famine. Some 4.9 million people were reached with humanitarian aid, including food assistance to three million people.”

[375] “Annual Report 2017.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, June 11, 2018. <www.unocha.org>

Page 15:

The humanitarian crisis caused by escalating violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine State triggered the world’s fastest-growing refugee crisis, with over 1 million people in need in Bangladesh. The 655,000 people—mostly women and children—who arrived in Bangladesh between 25 August and the end of 2017 were destitute, traumatized and in need of medical treatment for injury and disease. They joined the 300,000 people who had already fled to Bangladesh in earlier waves of displacement and the 92,000 people in need in the host community.

OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] deployed 27 staff/experts over various periods for seven months to support the coordination of the humanitarian response. OCHA facilitated the allocation of $24 million from CERF funds to support life-saving humanitarian response, and it supported the formulation of a HRP [Humanitarian Response Plan], calling for $434 million to fund humanitarian response between September 2017 and February 2018.

[376] Webpage: “Who We Are.” United Nations, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 15, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] carries out its coordination function primarily through the IASC [Inter-Agency Standing Committee], which is chaired by the ERC [Emergency Relief Coordinator]. Participants include all humanitarian partners, from United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, to the Red Cross movement and NGOs [non-government organizations]. The IASC ensures inter-agency decision-making in response to complex emergencies. These responses include needs assessments, consolidated appeals, field coordination arrangements and the development of humanitarian policies.

[377] Webpage: “Humanitarian Access.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed November 17, 2018 at <www.unocha.org>

The Emergency Relief Coordinator actively facilitates, including through negotiation if needed, the access by the operational organizations to emergency areas for the rapid provision of emergency assistance by obtaining the consent of all parties concerned, through modalities such as the establishment of temporary relief corridors, days and zones of tranquility and other forms where needed (A/RES/46/182). …

Yet, multiple constraints impinge on access. The 2010 Report of the Secretary-General on the Protection of Civilians identifies the following:

• Bureaucratic restrictions imposed by State and non-State actors on personnel and humanitarian supplies. This includes donor governments’ funding restrictions on engaging with Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Hamas in Gaza; and domestic legislations criminalizing the provision of “material support” to designated foreign terrorist organizations.

• Intensity of hostility in civilian areas.

• Attacks on humanitarian personnel and theft of assets.

[378] Article: “Humanitarian Access.” By Karen Perrin. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OCHA on Message, April 2017. <www.unocha.org>

Many types of constraints affect humanitarians’ ability to reach people who need assistance, particularly in situations of armed conflict, but they can also be problematic in natural disaster contexts. These constraints also affect the ability of affected people to have full access to humanitarian aid. They include:

• Denial of the existence of humanitarian needs or of entitlements to assistance.

• Restrictions of movement of personnel and humanitarian supplies.

• Physical environment.

• Interference in humanitarian activities (for example, the diversion of aid).

• Active fighting and military operations.

• Attacks on humanitarian personnel, goods and facilities. …

OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] has a vital role in coordinating and supporting humanitarian actors’ efforts to establish and maintain humanitarian access, and to overcome factors that inhibit access. Facilitating and coordinating efforts to establish access to affected people is central to the mandates of the Emergency Relief Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinators (HCs).

[379] “Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict.” United Nations Security Council, March 30, 2001. <undocs.org>

Page 4:

Despite the Security Council’s repeated reaffirmation of the importance of safe and unimpeded access (see, for example, resolutions 706 (1991) on Iraq and 1333 (2000) on Afghanistan), gaining safe and regular access is a daily struggle marked by a plethora of practical concerns, including demands of conditionality—warring parties requesting their share of aid before granting access to vulnerable populations; the deliberate starving of civilians to attract food aid in order to feed combatants; or the delivery of dual-purpose items that could also serve the war effort.

Page 7: “Failure to separate armed elements from civilians has led to devastating situations in and around camps and settlements. … In addition, humanitarian aid and supplies are often diverted to these armed elements, depriving the intended civilian beneficiaries.”

[380] “Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 2060 (2012): Somalia.” United Nations Security Council, July 12, 2013. <www.un.org>

Pages 32–33:

In addition, Al-Shabaab continues to impose taxes on the few humanitarian agencies and their staff permitted to operate in its areas. While most international agencies and their partners deny paying taxes directly to Al-Shabaab, creative means are devised to meet Al-Shabaab’s demands, such as providing salary increases to national staff to cover the costs. …

Government forces and affiliated militias also employ methods of extorting money from aid agencies and workers, either by setting up illegal checkpoints or looting assistance intended for vulnerable civilians. …

Diversion of aid in Somalia goes well beyond the theft of goods or resources destined to vulnerable populations. Indeed, one of the most pernicious forms of diversion continues to involve the phenomenon previously documented by the Monitoring Group (S/2012/544, annex 6.2). Individuals and groups, operating in networks organized to steal from and exploit vulnerable populations, including internally displaced persons, continue to act as “gatekeepers” and ensure that local “pie-cutting” remains an essential component of aid delivery. Consequently, a large proportion of resources do not reach the intended beneficiaries. In addition, some gatekeepers are responsible for grave violations of human rights, including sexual violence and the mistreatment of vulnerable civilians. International assistance often fuels a cycle of abuse as aid organizations engage with gatekeepers for lack of an alternative. …

Gatekeepers are only one part of the problem. As different parts of Somalia have become more accessible in recent months, ground observations and greater third party monitoring have often revealed shocking truths about the lack of implementation and low quality of programmes. Diversion of resources by staff, partners and contractors has occurred across organizations, including in the highly visible and well-funded cash assistance programmes that rose in prominence during the 2011 famine response. This led the United Nations to blacklist, for instance, a long-time Somali non-governmental partner, the African Rescue Committee, for fraud. …

Page 366–368:

Diversion of funds by gatekeepers is endemic. For example, the Monitoring Group has obtained evidence showing the existence of “ghost camps” that are operated by gatekeepers and supported by international assistance. One such camp in the Karaan District of Mogadishu was supposedly home to 3200 families and supported since 2011 by UN agencies. In April 2012, UN officials visited the camp and found in addition to the gatekeepers only a few women present with 20 to 30 shelters occupied by watchmen. …

Although such cases are often documented and known to humanitarian agencies, they sometimes ignore them due to preoccupations with spending existing funds and securing future grants rather than ensuring accountability either to donors or beneficiaries. …

Despite evidence of fraud and diversion across organisations, a culture of denial persists, wherein aid agencies are reluctant to admit the misconduct by their staff and partners. Nevertheless, in the last year, individual UN agencies and NGOs have adopted mechanisms to mitigate risks posed by implementation through multiple layers of sub-contracting. …

… In addition, UNHCR took action against two of its implementing partners engaged in the distribution of non-food items (NFIs), the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and JUMBO, for a significant percentage of diversion of NFIs from intended beneficiaries (ranging from 35 to 70% in the case of JUMBO).17

[381] Article: “Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa.” By Dambisa Moyo. Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2009. <www.wsj.com>

The most obvious criticism of aid is its links to rampant corruption … As recently as 2002, the African Union, an organization of African nations, estimated that corruption was costing the continent $150 billion a year….

… A month ago, Malawi’s former President Bakili Muluzi was charged with embezzling aid money worth $12 million. Zambia’s former President Frederick Chiluba … remains embroiled in a court case that has revealed millions of dollars frittered away … toward his personal cash dispenser. …

[382] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2019.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 4, 2018. <reliefweb.int>

Page 26:

In DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], humanitarian needs remain acute as a result of persistent conflict, political tensions, and the risk of epidemics including cholera and Ebola. In 2019, 12.8 million people will need humanitarian aid, almost the same number as the previous year. However, access issues and other operational constraints will mean that humanitarian organizations will aim to assist 9 million people in 2019, 14 per cent fewer than in 2018.

Page 53: “Humanitarian organizations have considered access constraints and their operational capacities in determining the number of people they can realistically assist.”

[383] Resolution 2165. United Nations Security Council, July 14, 2014. <unscr.com>

The Security Council …

Expressing grave alarm at the significant and rapid deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria, … recognizing that, while some steps have been undertaken by the Syrian parties, they have not had the necessary impact on the delivery of humanitarian assistance to all people in need throughout Syria, …

Decides that the United Nations humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners are authorized to use routes across conflict lines and the border crossings of Bab al-Salam, Bab al-Hawa, Al Yarubiyah and Al-Ramtha, in addition to those already in use, in order to ensure that humanitarian assistance, including medical and surgical supplies, reaches people in need throughout Syria through the most direct routes, with notification to the Syrian authorities, and to this end stresses the need for all border crossings to be used efficiently for United Nations humanitarian operations….

[384] Article: “2018 Worst Year in Syria’s Humanitarian Crisis: U.N. Official.” By Lisa Barrington. Reuters, May 18, 2018. <www.reuters.com>

“Moumtzis [United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for the Syria crisis] also said he was concerned about poor aid access in Syria. In 2017, 27 percent of requests made by the U.N. to Syrian authorities for permission to deliver aid were granted. In the first four months of 2018 only seven percent were granted, Moumtzis said.”

[385] Article: “UN Struggles to Deliver Humanitarian Aid in Syria.” Al Jazeera, July 27, 2017. <www.aljazeera.com>

Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Ursula Mueller told the UN Security Council … that there have been no UN aid convoys to besieged areas in July and just one a week to hard-to-reach areas….

Mueller blamed the Syrian government, armed groups, insecurity and fighting. …

In a letter to the Security Council, ambassadors from 12 Western and Arab nations and the European Union … said they remain “extremely concerned” that the UN is being excluded from sending convoys to besieged and hard-to-reach areas.

“This trend has worsened significantly in recent months,” said the letter, obtained by The Associated Press.

“Only two UN supported convoys have been able to access territory besieged by the Syrian authorities since April.”

The ambassadors urged the Security Council to underline to Syria its obligation under international law to allow humanitarian aid deliveries—and to take action given its pledge to “take further steps in the case of non-compliance.”

[386] Resolution 2139. United Nations Security Council, February 22, 2014. <undocs.org>

The Security Council …

Expressing grave alarm at the significant and rapid deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria … and deploring the difficulties in providing, and the failure to provide, access for the humanitarian assistance to all civilians in need inside Syria …

Demands that all parties, in particular the Syrian authorities, promptly allow rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access for United Nations humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners, including across conflict lines and across borders, in order to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches people in need through the most direct routes …

Urges all parties, in particular the Syrian authorities, to take all appropriate steps to facilitate the efforts of the United Nations, its specialized agencies, and all humanitarian actors engaged in humanitarian relief activities, to provide immediate humanitarian assistance to the affected people in Syria, including by promptly facilitating safe and unhindered humanitarian access to populations in need of assistance in all areas under their control, and encourages further cooperation between the United Nations, its specialized agencies and all parties concerned, including Syrian civil society organizations, to facilitate access and the delivery of assistance in the entirety of the Syrian territory….

[387] Resolution 814. United Nations Security Council, March 26, 1993. <unscr.com>

The Security Council …

Noting the need for continued humanitarian relief assistance and for the rehabilitation of Somalia’s political institutions and economy,

Concerned that the crippling famine and drought in Somalia, compounded by the civil strife, have cause massive destruction to the means of production and the natural and human resources of that country, …

Authorizes the mandate for the expanded UNSOM (UNSOM II)….

[388] Resolution 897. United Nations Security Council, February 4, 1994. <unscr.com>

The Security Council …

Paying tribute to the peacekeepers and humanitarian personnel of several countries killed or injured while serving in Somalia and, in this context, re-emphasizing the importance the Council attaches to the safety and security of United Nations and other personnel engaged in humanitarian relief and peacekeeping throughout Somalia, …

Approves the … continuation of UNOSOM II … with a revised mandate for the following: …

Protecting major ports and airports and essential infrastructure and safeguarding the lines of communications vital to the provision of humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance; …

Continuing its efforts to provide humanitarian relief to all in need throughout the country….

[389] Resolution 1925. United Nations Security Council, May 28, 2010. <unscr.com>

The Security Council …

Decides that MONUSCO shall have the following mandate in this order

of priority:

Protection of Civilians

(a) Ensure the effective protection of civilians, including humanitarian personnel and human rights defenders, under imminent threat of physical violence, in particular violence emanating from any of the parties engaged in the conflict….

[390] Webpage: “MONUSCO Fact Sheet.” United Nations, Department for Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed December 6, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

MONUSCO took over from an earlier UN peacekeeping operation—the United Nations Organization Mission in Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)—on 1 July 2010. …

The new mission has been authorized to use all necessary means to carry out its mandate relating, among other things, to the protection of civilians, humanitarian personnel and human rights defenders under imminent threat of physical violence….

[391] Resolution 1769. United Nations Security Council, July 31, 2007. <www.un.org>

The Security Council … decides that UNAMID [African Union–United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] is authorised to take the necessary action, in the areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities in order to … protect its personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, and to ensure the security and freedom of movement of its own personnel and humanitarian workers….

[392] Webpage: “UNAMID Fact Sheet.” United Nations, Department for Peacekeeping Operations. Accessed December 6, 2018 at <peacekeeping.un.org>

“The African Union–United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur … has the protection of civilians as its core mandate, but is also tasked with contributing to security for humanitarian assistance….”

[393] “Final Report of the Independent Panel of Experts on the Cholera Outbreak in Haiti.” United Nations, May 4, 2011. <reliefweb.int>

Page 3: “On October 22nd, 2010, the first cholera case in Haiti in nearly a century was confirmed at the Haiti National Public Health Laboratory.”

[394] Webpage: “Haiti Cholera Figures as of 27 April 2018.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, April 27, 2018. <reliefweb.int>

Oct 2010–Mar 2018

Cumulative Cases

818K

Cumulative Deaths

9,757

[395] “Final Report of the Independent Panel of Experts on the Cholera Outbreak in Haiti.” United Nations, May 4, 2011. <reliefweb.int>

Page 3:

In order to determine the source of the outbreak definitively, the Secretary-General of the United Nations formed an Independent Panel of four international experts (the “Independent Panel”), with a mandate to “investigate and seek to determine the source of the 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti.” To fulfill this mandate, concurrent epidemiological, water and sanitation, and molecular analysis investigations were carried out.

Page 23:

The sanitation conditions at the Mirebalais MINUSTAH [UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti] camp were not sufficient to prevent contamination of the Meye Tributary System with human fecal waste. It is clear that: 1) there was potential for feces to enter into and flow from the drainage canal running through the camp directly into the southwestern branch of the Meye Tributary System; and, 2) there was potential for waste from the open septic disposal pit to contaminate the southeastern branch of the Meye Tributary System either by overflow during rainfall or contamination via animal transport. MINUSTAH contracts with an outside contractor to handle human fecal waste. Additionally, although residents report contractor trucks dumping feces into the septic pit, it has been suggested there might have been an unauthorized feces dumping directly into the Meye Tributary System (Piarroux, 2010). This proposition could not be independently confirmed. …

Given the velocities of the water in the Meye Tributary System, and the flow of water reported by operators along the Artibonite River, contamination in the Meye could have reached Canneau within one to two days, and would have been fully distributed in the canal system in the Artibonite River Delta within a maximum of two to three days. This timeline is consistent with the epidemiological evidence indicating that the outbreak began in Mirebalais and within two to three days cases were being seen throughout the Artibonite River Delta. This timeline verifies that river transport was the likely transmission route for cholera to spread from the mountains of Mirebalais to the Artibonite River Delta.

Page 27: “A careful analysis of the MLVA results and the ctxB gene indicated that the strains isolated in Haiti and Nepal during 2009 were a perfect match.”

Page 28:

The available molecular data from whole genome sequence and comparisons of smaller specific parts of the genomes of the Vibrio cholerae strains responsible for the outbreak of cholera in Haiti show a remarkable consistency. They all indicate that the Haitian strains are: 1) clonal (genetically identical) indicating a pointsource for the outbreak; and, 2) very similar but not identical to the South Asian strains of Vibrio cholerae O1. It must be emphasized, however, that the Haitian strains have certain minor traits not found in collections from other parts of the world, which is consistent with the micro-evolution that takes place continuously within the El Tor biotype as it moves from continent to continent and even country to country.

The analysis of available data refutes the argument that the Haitian strains arose indigenously from the Haitian environment. The Haitian strains did not originate from the native environs of Haiti but as a result of human activity in an area that promoted the dissemination of the organism. The presence of riverine settings that merge into an estuarine environment, which is an optimal setting for rapid growth of Vibrio cholerae O1, is likely to have contributed to the rapid spread of the pathogen. This has happened before in many parts of the world.

The precise country from where the Haiti isolate of Vibrio cholerae O1 arrived is debatable. Preliminary genetic analysis using MLVA profiles and cholera toxin B subunit mutations indicate that the strains isolated during the cholera outbreak in Haiti and those circulating in South Asia, including Nepal, at the same time in 2009–2010 are similar.

[396] Paper: “Understanding the Cholera Epidemic, Haiti.” By Renaud Piarroux and others. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Emerging Infectious Diseases, July 2011. Pages 1161–1168. <wwwnc.cdc.gov>

Page 1165:

Our epidemiologic study provides several additional arguments confirming an importation of cholera in Haiti. There was an exact correlation in time and places between the arrival of a Nepalese battalion from an area experiencing a cholera outbreak and the appearance of the first cases in Meille a few days after. The remoteness of Meille in central Haiti and the absence of report of other incomers make it unlikely that a cholera strain might have been brought there another way. DNA fingerprinting of V. cholerae isolates in Haiti1 and genotyping7 21 corroborate our findings because the fingerprinting and genotyping suggest an introduction from a distant source in a single event.22

[397] Paper: “The Cholera Outbreak in Haiti: Where and How Did It Begin?” By Daniele Lantagne and others. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 2013. Pages 145–164. <www.ijdh.org>

Page 18 (of PDF):

The exact source of introduction of cholera into Haiti will never be known with scientific certainty, as it is not possible to travel back in time to conduct the necessary investigations, and those on the ground at the time focused on outbreak response not source introduction. However, the preponderance of the evidence and the weight of the circumstantial evidence does lead to the conclusion that personnel associated with the Mirebalais MINUSTAH [UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti] facility were the most likely source of introduction of cholera into Haiti. We would like to highlight here that we do not feel that this was a deliberate introduction of cholera into Haiti; based on the evidence we feel that the introduction of cholera was an accidental and unfortunate confluence of events. Action should be taken in the future to prevent such introduction of cholera into non-endemic countries in the future.

[398] Article: “UN’s Ban Apologizes to People of Haiti, Outlines New Plan to Fight Cholera Epidemic and Help Communities.” United Nations UN News, December 1, 2016. <news.un.org>

“On behalf of the United Nations, I want to say very clearly: we apologise to the Haitian people. We simply did not do enough with regard to the cholera outbreak and its spread in Haiti. We are profoundly sorry for our role,” Mr. Ban told UN Member States at a gathering of the General Assembly at UN Headquarters in New York, and at which he launched his report on the matter, entitled “A New Approach to Cholera in Haiti.”

… “The United Nations should seize this opportunity to address a tragedy that also has damaged our reputation and global mission. That criticism will persist unless we do what is right for those affected. In short, UN action requires Member State action.”

[399] Article: “United Nations Response to Cholera in Haiti.” United Nations UN News, September 2016. <www.un.org>

Page 2: “The High Level Committee on Cholera, set up by the Secretary-General and the Prime Minister of Haiti in 2014, and jointly chaired by the Government of Haiti and the UN, regularly reviews the implementation of the National Cholera Elimination Plan. … The National Plan for Cholera Elimination is costed at $2.2 billion of which currently

23.7 per cent is funded.”

Page 3: “In 2016, UNICEF [UN Children’s Fund] and partners together with the Ministry of Health of Haiti have implemented 680 rapid responses to cholera alerts in all 10 departments, benefiting about 6,000 households and responding to 1,100 cases (providing health treatment, sanitation, water and prevention kits).”

Page 5: “In support of the initiative [National Sanitation Campaign], UNICEF is focusing on rural water and sanitation and so far has mobilized over $20 million and has internally allocated $1.38 million. … MINUSTAH [UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti] continued working on 22 projects to improve access to drinking water, sanitation and health services.”

[400] “Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the Investigation Into Sexual Exploitation of Refugees by Aid Workers in West Africa.” United Nations Secretariat, Office of Internal Oversight Services, October 11, 2002. <www.un.org>

Page 3:

Late in November 2001, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) was asked by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to review allegations of sexual exploitation of female refugees by international and national aid workers, specifically regarding United Nations and non-governmental organization (NGO) staff and peacekeepers in three West African countries: Guinea , Liberia and Sierra Leone. The allegation of widespread sexual exploitation arose from a report by two consultants who had been commissioned by UNHCR and Save the Children (UK) to study the question of sexual exploitation and violence in the refugee communities in the three countries. …

It was agreed with UNHCR that, for the purpose of the investigation, the definition of sexual exploitation would be concerned primarily with situations in which an international NGO, humanitarian or aid worker, in a position of power, uses that power to request sexual favours or benefits by trading food or services that refugees are entitled to receive free of charge via the distribution system of international aid. …

Although the stories reported by the consultants could not be verified, the problem of sexual exploitation of refugees is real. Extensive interviews of many potential witnesses, victims and others thought to have relevant information enabled the Investigation Team to identify new cases of sexual exploitation, ranging from consensual relationships that occurred as a result of the exploiter’s position of power to allegations of sodomy and rape of refugees.

Page 9:

Case 1

(a) A 17-year-old female refugee from Sierra Leone alleged that she was involved in a sexual relationship with a United Nations Volunteer. She stated that she had met him in 1999 when she was approximately 15 years old while he, a man then aged 44 years, was a United Nations Volunteer working with UNHCR in Gueckedou, Guinea. Following the first meeting, the victim and the Volunteer agreed to enter into a sexual relationship.

(b) At the time of the relationship the refugee victim was living with foster parents in that town. The victim stated that the United Nations Volunteer knew her to be a refugee and was aware of her age, which was confirmed by other evidence. She further explained that the he assisted her financially by paying her school fees, enabling her to acquire computing and typing skills. The victim told the investigators that, as result of her sexual relationship with the United Nations Volunteer, she became pregnant. The man then abandoned her, refused to accept paternity or provide any form of support or maintenance for the child.

(c) When confronted with the evidence in the case, the United Nations Volunteer at first attempted to deny the allegation but later admitted that he had had a sexual relationship with the victim. He refused to accept responsibility for the pregnancy, however.

(d) The contract of the United Nations Volunteer has since been terminated as a result of the evidence obtained during the investigation.

Page 11:

Case 6

An allegation that a truck driver employed by one of the implementing partners of UNHCR was engaged in sexual exploitation was investigated by the Team and substantiated. The under-aged victim identified the driver from an array of photographs as the person who had impregnated her and abandoned her. The matter has been referred to the employing NGO for appropriate action.

Case 7

In another case investigated, the Investigation Team confirmed that a refugee, who was also an NGO employee, had impregnated a 17-year-old refugee girl. He has since fled to his country of origin and cannot be located.

Page 20:

The grave allegations of widespread sexual exploitation and abuse of refugee and internally displaced women and children by humanitarian workers and peacekeepers in West Africa have highlighted the vulnerability of refugees, internally displaced persons and others, especially women and girls. …

In setting up the Task Force, IASC [Inter-Agency Standing Committee] recognized that the problem of sexual exploitation and abuse in humanitarian crises is not confined to West Africa but is a global problem. … The foundations of sexual exploitation and abuse are embedded in unequal power relationships.

[401] Article: “UN-Backed Committee Launches Guides to Assist Aid Workers in Curbing Sexual Exploitation.” United Nations UN News, September 29, 2016. <news.un.org>

A United Nations-backed inter-agency committee today launched two guides to assist aid workers worldwide in setting up sexual exploitation and abuse prevention and response systems in humanitarian settings.

“The reason we need these tools is because we are still having too many violations,” said William Lacy Swing, Director General of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), at a panel discussion on protection from sexual exploitation and abuse at UN Headquarters in New York this afternoon, during which the guides were officially released.

[402] Report: “Global Humanitarian Overview 2019.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, December 4, 2018. <reliefweb.int>

Page 76:

In 2018, allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse shocked the humanitarian community. The incidents illustrated that renewed and sustained commitment has to be taken, collectively, to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse. … The UN and its partners will be especially challenged to ensure that systems are in place in remote field locations, at the point of last mile delivery.

Page 77:

Efforts to prevent and respond to SEA [sexual exploitation and abuse] are often not as strong as they could be, and people in conflict areas report a general lack of understanding of how to engage with or complain about aid efforts. Furthermore, in many conflict settings, such as Somalia, Syria and Yemen, direct access by the UN and international NGOs [non-governmental organizations] is limited, hampering monitoring and diluting accountability.

[403] See here for related facts about sexual exploitation and abuse in UN missions.

[404] Paper: “Food Aid’s Intended and Unintended Consequences.” By Christopher B. Barrett. United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. Revised March 2006. <barrett.dyson.cornell.edu>

Pages 10–11:

Food prices almost invariably fall in local markets after food aid distribution. Food aid can drive down local (or national) food prices in at least three ways. First, monetization of food aid can flood the market, increasing supply. Second, households receiving food aid may decrease demand for the commodity received or for locally produced substitutes or, if they produce substitutes or the commodity received, they may sell more of it. Finally, recipients may sell food aid to purchase other necessities or complements, driving down prices of the food aid commodity and its substitutes, but also increasing demand for complements. Lowered prices hurt net sellers of the commodity and, if food aid deliveries are regular occurrences, can create a disincentive for them to invest in their own agricultural production activities. … Further, lowered prices can decrease the relative payoff to investing in agriculture, either by governments or by producers. …

[M]any recipient economies are not robust and food aid inflows can cause large price decreases, decreasing producer profits, limiting producers’ abilities to pay off debts and thereby diminishing both capacity and incentives to invest in improving agricultural productivity. Barrett and Maxwell (2005) describe a collapse in sorghum prices in southern Somalia in 2000, linking it, in part, to poorly timed sorghum food aid delivered to Ethiopia that then moved across the border and adversely impacted producers in southern Somalia. Tschirley, Donovan, and Weber (1996) found that large amounts of maize food aid delivered to Mozambique caused both the yellow and white maize market prices to fall.

[405] Book: Aiding and Abetting: Foreign Aid Failures and the 0.7% Deception. By Jonathan Foreman. Civitas, 2012.

Page 125:

When the aid agencies and INGOs22 arrive in a crisis area with their need for interpreters and drivers, their willingness to pay First World salaries, their requirements for food and petrol, and their desire for relatively luxurious housing, local prices rise dramatically. This brings benefits to some local businesspeople but catastrophe for many other local inhabitants. If this distortion is recognised at all by the aid workers, it tends to be viewed as mere collateral damage, subordinate to the more important task of saving lives.

22 An INGO is an international NGO [non-government organization].

Pages 129–130:

When international agencies were still active in Somalia, the various tribal militias and criminal gangs grew rich on “taxes,” protection fees and moneys charged for food aid to enter their territories. During the Liberian civil war both sides demanded a percentage of the value of aid that foreign agencies brought into the country.

In Sri Lanka, after the Tsunami the Dutch arm of the international Christian charity Caritas wanted to build emergency housing in the North of the country. Doing so meant paying 25% over the odds, mostly in “taxes” imposed by the ruthless Tamil Tiger rebel movement, which was then able to buy more weapons and prolong its doomed struggle against the central government.28 During the Balkan wars it was said that UNHCR [United Nations Refugee Agency] gave almost a third of its aid supplies to Serb militias as a price of using certain highways.

As Linda Polman put it: “Once inside a war zone, it’s essential … to have a blind spot for matters of ethics. Warlords … deluge INGOs [international non-government organizations] with taxes, often invented on the spot: import duties on aid supplies, fees for visas and work permits, harbour and airport taxes, income taxes, road taxes and permits for cars and trucks. The proceeds go straight into their war chests.”29 Of course, these groups and individuals are merely mirroring the cynical and ruthless practices of many well-established Third World governments in the midst of humanitarian crises. But the fact that aid agencies may be subsidising the very conflicts whose harms they exist to reduce, should surely prompt rather more questioning and reticence than it has. Especially as in some cases the vehicles and fuel and food taken by or handed over to militia groups have spelt the difference between victory and defeat, war and peace. …

The multiplication of aid agencies and NGOs [non-government organizations] has arguably made this problem worse. When there were only a handful of international agencies, it was theoretically possible for them to unite and resist extortionate demands. Now that there is such fierce competition to gain access to disaster areas and conflict zones, and now that some of the major donors come from places like China, and the Gulf states, there are ever greater incentives for agencies to just shut up and pay up.

[406] Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined … to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained….”

[407] Webpage: “International Laws and Organizations” SUNY Levin Institute, Globalization 101. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.globalization101.org>

Since there is no world government, there is no world Congress or parliament to make international law the way domestic legislatures create laws for one country. As such, there can be significant difficulty in establishing exactly what international law is. Various sources, however—principally treaties between states—are considered authoritative statements of international law.

[408] Webpage: “Uphold International Law.” United Nations. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“International law defines the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries.”

[409] Entry: “International Law.” By Malcolm Shaw. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Revised 9/30/08. <www.britannica.com>

Treaties are known by a variety of terms—conventions, agreements, pacts, general acts, charters, and covenants—all of which signify written instruments in which the participants (usually but not always states) agree to be bound by the negotiated terms. … Countries that do not sign and ratify a treaty are not bound by its provisions.

[410] Webpage: “The Formation of the United Nations, 1945.” U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Accessed December 12, 2018 at <history.state.gov>

The Roosevelt administration strove to avoid Woodrow Wilson’s mistakes in selling the League of Nations to the Senate. It sought bipartisan support and in September 1943 the Republican Party endorsed U.S. participation in a postwar international organization, after which both houses of Congress overwhelmingly endorsed participation. Roosevelt also sought to convince the public that an international organization was the best means to prevent future wars. The Senate approved the UN Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2. The United Nations came into existence on October 24, 1945, after 29 nations had ratified the Charter.

[411] Entry: “United Nations Charter.” Wex Legal Dictionary. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

The United Nations Charter (UN Charter, or Charter) is a core constituent document of the United Nations, and the United Nations System. Legally, the UN Charter is a multilateral international treaty…. In addition to creating the basic international institutional structure, the UN Charter restates many core principles of international law, including customary international law.

[412] Webpage: “Uphold International Law.” United Nations. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.un.org>

“These powers are given to it by the UN Charter, which is considered an international treaty. As such, it is an instrument of international law, and UN Member States are bound by it.”

[413] Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1 The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. …

Article 25

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. …

Article 48

1 The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2 Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

[414] Book: Economic Sanctions: Panacea or Peacebuilding in a Post-Cold War World? Edited by David Cortright and George A. Lopez. Westview Press, 1995. Chapter 2: “The United Nations Experience with Sanctions.” By James C. Ngobi. Pages 17–28.

Page 21:

The Security Council has consistently declared or implied that the responsibility for implementing the sanctions it establishes lies with states…. This position probably springs from the realization that acts violating sanctions will be committed in the jurisdiction of some state, which must then investigate and/or prevent the act and deal with the guilty parties….

Pages 23–24:

[E]xclusive reliance on states for imposing sanctions means that the Security Council committees do not have an independent external mechanism to implement sanctions or to verify that the investigations undertaken by governments are sufficient and conclusive. …

Fourth, there should be measures to punish the offenders who continue to trade with a sanctioned country. … If it is found that the countries in which such companies or individuals reside are not exercising sufficient control or restraint on their national entities, a threat of secondary sanctions against such countries would likely yield amazing results in the field of compliance.

[415] Entry: “International Law.” By Malcolm Shaw. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Revised 9/30/08. <www.britannica.com>

[A]lthough the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, which consists of representatives of some 190 countries, has the outward appearances of a legislature, it has no power to issue binding laws. Rather, its resolutions serve only as recommendations—except in specific cases and for certain purposes within the UN system, such as determining the UN budget, admitting new members of the UN, and, with the involvement of the Security Council, electing new judges to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

[416] Webpage: “International Law and Justice.” United Nations. Accessed November 29, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The International Law Commission was established by the General Assembly in 1947 to promote the progressive development of international law and its codification. The Commission is composed of 34 members who collectively represent the world’s principal legal systems, and serve as experts in their individual capacity, not as representatives of their governments. They address a wide range of issues relevant to the regulation of relations among states, and … most of the Commission’s work involves the preparation of drafts on aspects of international law.

… When the Commission completes work on a topic, the General Assembly sometimes convenes an international conference of plenipotentiaries to incorporate the draft into a convention. The convention is then opened to states to become parties—meaning that such countries formally agree to be bound by its provisions. Some of these conventions form the very foundation of the law governing relations among states.

[417] Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 92

The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

[418] Webpage: “The Court.” International Court of Justice. Accessed October 25, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). … The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.”

[419] Book: The Work of the International Law Commission (Volume I, 8th edition). United Nations, 2012. <legal.un.org>

Page 111:

At its forty-sixth session, in 1994, the Commission decided to reestablish the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court. The Working Group re-examined the preliminary draft statute for an international criminal court annexed to the Commission’s report at the preceding session,440 and prepared the draft statute,441 taking into account, inter alia, the comments by Governments on the report of the Working Group submitted to the Commission at its previous session,442 and the views expressed during the debate in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session on the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-fifth session.443

Page 113: “The Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court met from 3 to 13 April and from 14 to 25 August 1995, during which time the Committee reviewed the issues arising out of the draft statute prepared by the Commission and considered arrangements for the convening of an international conference.448

Page 115: “On 17 July 1998, the Conference adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court453 which consists of a preamble and 128 articles contained in thirteen parts….The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. As of 31 December 2011, 120 States were parties to the Rome Statute.454

[420] Webpage: “International Law and Justice.” United Nations. Accessed January 3, 2018 at <www.un.org>

The idea of a permanent international court to prosecute crimes against humanity was first considered at the United Nations in the context of the adoption of the Genocide Convention of 1948. For many years, differences of opinions forestalled further developments. In 1992, the General Assembly directed the International Law Commission to prepare a draft statute for such a court. … The International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. … The ICC is legally and functionally independent from the United Nations, and is not a part of the UN system.

The cooperation between the UN and the ICC is governed by a Negotiated Relationship Agreement. The Security Council can initiate proceedings before the ICC, and can refer to the ICC situations that would not otherwise fall under the Court’s jurisdiction.

[421] Entry: “International Criminal Court.” Encyclopedia Britannica, January 15, 2004. Last updated 10/9/18. <www.britannica.com>

International Criminal Court (ICC), permanent judicial body established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) to prosecute and adjudicate individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. …

The ICC was established as a court of last resort to prosecute the most heinous offenses in cases where national courts fail to act. Unlike the International Court of Justice, which hears disputes between states, the ICC handles prosecutions of individuals. The court’s jurisdiction extends to offenses that occurred after July 1, 2002, that were committed either in a state that has ratified the agreement or by a national of such a state.

[422] “Statute of the International Court of Justice.” United Nations. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

Article 36

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

a) the interpretation of a treaty;

b) any question of international law;

c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

3. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain states, or for a certain time.

4. Such declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the parties to the Statute and to the Registrar of the Court.

5. Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms.

[423] Article: “International Law.” By Malcom Shaw. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Modified 12/7/16. <www.britannica.com>

Contentious jurisdiction enables the court to hear cases between states, provided that the states concerned have given their consent. This consent may be signaled through a special agreement, or compromis (French: “compromise”); through a convention that gives the court jurisdiction over matters that include the dispute in question (e.g., the genocide convention); or through the so-called optional clause, in which a state makes a declaration in advance accepting the ICJ’s jurisdiction over matters relating to the dispute. … The ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction enables it to give opinions on legal questions put to it by any body authorized by or acting in accordance with the UN Charter.

[424] Webpage: “Basis of the Court’s Jurisdiction.” International Court of Justice. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

The jurisdiction of the Court in contentious proceedings is based on the consent of the States to which it is open.1 The form in which this consent is expressed determines the manner in which a case may be brought before the Court.

(a) Special Agreement

Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute provides that the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it. Such cases normally come before the Court by notification to the Registry of an agreement known as a special agreement, concluded by the parties specially for this purpose.2

(b) Matters Provided for in Treaties and Conventions

Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute also provides that the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force. Such matters are normally brought before the Court by means of a written application instituting proceedings;3 this is a unilateral document which must indicate the subject of the dispute and the parties … and, as far as possible, specify the provision on which the applicant founds the jurisdiction of the Court (Rules, Art. 38). …

(c) Compulsory Jurisdiction in Legal Disputes

The Statute provides that a State may recognize as compulsory, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in legal disputes. …

[425] Webpage: “How the Court Works.” International Court of Justice. Accessed October 30, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

“After the oral proceedings the Court deliberates in camera and then delivers its judgment at a public sitting. The judgment is final, binding on the parties to a case and without appeal (at the most it may be subject to interpretation or, upon the discovery of a new fact, revision).”

[426] Webpage: “Basis of the Court’s Jurisdiction.” International Court of Justice. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such party’s ignorance was not due to negligence (Statute, Art. 61, para. 1). A request for revision is made by means of an application (Rules, Art. 99).6

[427] Article: “International Law.” By Malcom Shaw. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Modified 12/7/16. <www.britannica.com>

“The ICJ, whose decisions are binding upon the parties and extremely influential generally, possesses both contentious and advisory jurisdiction.”

[428] Webpage: “How the Court Works.” International Court of Justice. Accessed October 30, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

By signing the Charter, a Member State of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which it is a party. Since, furthermore, a case can only be submitted to the Court and decided by it if the parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case, it is rare for a decision not to be implemented. A State which considers that the other side has failed to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court may bring the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

[429] Entry: “International Court of Justice.” By Karen Mingst. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Last revised 4/16/02. <www.britannica.com>

The court itself has no powers of enforcement, but according to article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations:

If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

[430] “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.un.org>

Article 94

If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

[431] Paper: “Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice.” By Aloysius P. Llamzon. European Journal of International Law, November 2007. Pages 815–852. <academic.oup.com>

Page 847:

In its entire history, the Security Council has never employed its Article 94 powers even on occasions of clear non-compliance. It is understandable, given the discretionary nature of Article 92(4),230 for the Council to be inert in situations wherein the debtor state is a Permanent Member. More puzzling is the fact that creditor states themselves very rarely seek the Security Council’s assistance in this capacity, even in the face of continued non-compliance.231

At least part of the reason for such paucity can be ascribed to the difficulties laid upon states seeking Security Council action. Because enforcement action under Article 94(2) is merely discretionary upon the Security Council, a finding that the ICJ judgment was defied does not, of itself, immediately trigger Security Council action; this uncertainty and potential for arbitrariness, in turn, nullifies much of the possibility that the Security Council can ever act as “international enforcer” in the same way the Executive department does in most states.

[432] Webpage: “Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory.” International Court of Justice. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

“The texts of declarations made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, which, based on the information provided by the depository, had not expired or been withdrawn or replaced on 1 January 2018, can be found below. … The declarations, deposited by a total of 73 States, are given here in English. … United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”

[433] Paper: “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies.” By Sean D. Murphy. United States and International Courts and Tribunals, 2008. <scholarship.law.gwu.edu>

Page 29 (of PDF): “The only permanent member of the Security Council that currently accepts the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction is the United Kingdom; China, France, and Russia do not. Further, the United Kingdom’s acceptance is conditioned by several significant reservations that make it quite difficult to sue it before the Court.”

[434] Paper: “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies.” By Sean D. Murphy. United States and International Courts and Tribunals, 2008. <scholarship.law.gwu.edu>

Page 2 (of PDF):

As is well known, in reaction to decisions that were reached by the Court, the United States refused to participate in the proceedings on the merits of the case brought by Nicaragua in 1984, withdrew from the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and recently terminated its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

[435] Paper: “Suggestions for the Limited Acceptance of Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice by the United States.” By Louis B. Sohn. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1988. Pages 1–18. <digitalcommons.law.uga.edu>

Page 17:

Of the declarations in force in 1986, twenty-five (more than half) contained a clause allowing their termination by notice, usually in the form of a notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to take effect from the moment of such notification.32 Some of these declarations provide expressly not only for termination but also for additions to, or amendments of, reservations contained in the declaration. In addition, as noted above, the Court has pointed out that a declaration containing no statement about its duration may be terminated by giving “reasonable” notice.33

[436] Article: “Walking Away From the World Court.” By Scott R. Anderson. Lawfare Institute, October 5, 2018. <www.lawfareblog.com>

These actions by the United States are largely consistent with international law. The Statute of the ICJ [International Court of Justice] makes the court’s jurisdiction contingent on state declarations of consent, allowing states to set conditions and time limits on those declarations as they see fit. In the case of the United States, the initial U.S. declaration provided for withdrawal with six months advance notice, a timeline to which it abided when it withdrew.

[437] Article: “Walking Away From the World Court.” By Scott R. Anderson. Lawfare Institute, October 5, 2018. <www.lawfareblog.com>

Many treaties that provide for ICJ [International Court of Justice] jurisdiction similarly allow for withdrawal, though generally from the treaty as a whole, not just the provisions regarding ICJ jurisdiction. The Treaty of Amity, for example, allows either party to withdraw from the treaty as a whole with one year’s advance written notice to the other party—a notice that the United States will presumably provide to Iran shortly, if it has not done so already.

The Optional Protocols to the VCDR [Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations] and VCCR [Vienna Convention on Consular Relations], however, do not expressly address withdrawal. While the United States appears to have taken the position that this makes withdrawal effective immediately upon notification, this is not necessarily the case. As Julian Ku wrote in relation to the United States’s 2005 withdrawal from the VCCR Optional Protocol, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) establishes that treaties without express terms governing withdrawal only permit it when intended by the parties or implied in the treaty’s terms—and even then only after 12 months’ advance notice. … Perhaps due to this ambiguity, the United Nations’ treaty office still lists the United States as a party to the VCCR Optional Protocol, even as it acknowledges the 2005 U.S. statement of withdrawal. …

Most multilateral treaties, however, do not use side agreements like the Optional Protocol to provide for ICJ jurisdiction. Instead, such jurisdiction is written directly into the treaty—a fact that may complicate the Trump administration’s forthcoming review. While some multilateral treaties expressly allow parties to opt out of such provisions, others do not.

[438] Paper: “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies.” By Sean D. Murphy. United States and International Courts and Tribunals, 2008. <scholarship.law.gwu.edu>

Page 2 (of PDF):

As is well known, in reaction to decisions that were reached by the Court, the United States refused to participate in the proceedings on the merits of the case brought by Nicaragua in 1984, withdrew from the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and recently terminated its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

[439] Article: “U.S. Withdraws From International Accords, Says U.N. World Court ‘Politicized.’ ” By Roberta Rampton, Lesley Wroughton, and Stephanie van den Berg. Reuters, October 3, 2018. <www.reuters.com>

‘We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction, dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice,’ Bolton said on Wednesday. ‘The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us.’

[440] “Statute of the International Court of Justice.” United Nations. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.icj-cij.org>

Article 37

1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

[441] Entry: “International Law.” By Malcolm Shaw. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Revised 9/30/08. <www.britannica.com>

The ICJ’s statute refers to “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law,” as a second source of international law. Custom … involves two fundamental elements: the actual practice of states and the acceptance by states of that practice as law. …

A third source of international law identified by the ICJ’s statute is “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.” …

Perhaps the most important principle of international law is that of good faith. It governs the creation and performance of legal obligations and is the foundation of treaty law. …

[A]lthough the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, which consists of representatives of some 190 countries, has the outward appearances of a legislature, it has no power to issue binding laws. Rather, its resolutions serve only as recommendations—except in specific cases and for certain purposes within the UN system, such as determining the UN budget, admitting new members of the UN, and, with the involvement of the Security Council, electing new judges to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

[442] Webpage: “International Laws and Organizations” SUNY Levin Institute, Globalization 101. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.globalization101.org>

Customary international law (CIL) is more difficult to ascertain than the provisions of a written treaty. CIL is created by the actual actions of states (called “state practice”) when they demonstrate that those states believe that acting otherwise would be illegal. Even if the rule of CIL is not written down, it still binds states, requiring them to follow it (Dinstein, 2004). …

Determining CIL is difficult, however, because, unlike a treaty, it is not written down. Some rules are so widely practiced and acknowledged by many states to be law, that there is little doubt that CIL exists regarding them; but other rules are not as universally recognized and disputes exists about whether they are truly CIL or not. …

The third source of international law is based on the theory of “natural law,” which argues that laws are a reflection of the instinctual belief that some acts are right while other acts are wrong. … For instance, most legal systems value “good faith,” that is, the concept that everyone intends to comply with agreements they make.

[443] Entry: “International Law.” By Malcolm Shaw. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 26, 1999. Revised 9/30/08. <www.britannica.com>

Article 38 (1) of the ICJ’s [International Court of Law] statute also recognizes judicial decisions and scholarly writings as subsidiary means for the determination of the law. Both municipal and international judicial decisions can serve to establish new principles and rules. In municipal cases, international legal rules can become clear through their consistent application by the courts of a number of states. A clearer method of law determination, however, is constituted by the international judicial decisions of bodies such as the ICJ at The Hague, the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea at Hamburg (Germany), and international arbitral tribunals.

[444] Webpage: “International Laws and Organizations” SUNY Levin Institute, Globalization 101. Accessed November 28, 2018 at <www.globalization101.org>

Judicial Decisions and Legal Scholarship

The last two sources of international law are considered “subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.” While these sources are not by themselves international law, when coupled with evidence of international custom or general principles of law, they may help to prove the existence of a particular rule of international law.

[445] Webpage: “International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.” United Nations, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Accessed December 9, 2018 at <www.icty.org>

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was a United Nations court of law that dealt with war crimes that took place during the conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990s. During its mandate, which lasted from 1993–2017, it irreversibly changed the landscape of international humanitarian law, provided victims an opportunity to voice the horrors they witnessed and experienced, and proved that those suspected of bearing the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed during armed conflicts can be called to account.

[446] Entry: “War Crime.” By Mary Margaret Penrose. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 20, 1998. Updated 5/3/17. <www.britannica.com>

In May 1993, in an attempt to prevent further acts of “ethnic cleansing” in the conflict between states of the former Yugoslavia and to restore peace and security to the Balkan region, the United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, commonly known as the ICTY.

[447] Webpage: “Key Figures of the Cases.” United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Updated June 2018. <www.icty.org>

89 Sentenced

5 awaiting transfer to a State to serve their sentence …

17 transferred to a State to serve their sentence …

58 have served their sentence …

9 died after trial or while serving their sentence….

[448] Webpage: “The ICTR in Brief.” United Nations, International Residue Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. Accessed December 9, 2018 at <unictr.irmct.org>

Since the ICTR’s [International Residue Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals’] closure on 31 December 2015, the Mechanism maintains this website as part of its mission to preserve and promote the legacy of the UN International Criminal Tribunals. …

For the first time in history, an international tribunal—the ICTR—delivered verdicts against persons responsible for committing genocide. …

62 Sentenced …

The United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to “prosecute persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994.” …

Since it opened in 1995, the Tribunal has indicted 93 individuals whom it considered responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda in 1994. Those indicted include high-ranking military and government officials, politicians, businessmen, as well as religious, militia, and media leaders. …

The ICTR delivered its last trial judgement on 20 December 2012 in the Ngirabatware case.

[449] Article: “Reagan’s Peace with the U.N.” By Lou Cannon. Washington Post, September 26, 1988. <www.washingtonpost.com>

“He [Reagan] … cut off U.S. contributions to the U.N. Fund for Population Activities and encouraged congressional efforts to force U.N. budget reform by withholding U.S. dues.”

[450] Article: “U.S. Refusal to Pay UN Dues Could Prove Embarrassing.” By Liz Sly. Chicago Tribune, September 24, 1990. <www.chicagotribune.com>

“The debt originates with a Reagan administration policy started in the mid-1980s and backed by Congress to withhold dues from the UN….”

[451] Article: “Reagan Releases U.N. Payments: Cites Fiscal Reforms, Peace Role; $188 Million Promised by Oct. 1.” By Don Shannon. Los Angeles Times, September 14, 1988. <articles.latimes.com>

President Reagan on Tuesday ordered the release to the United Nations of $188 million in back dues from the United States….

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater … said the President took the action because of U.N. progress in reforming financial management procedures and because of the organization’s “very constructive” work in helping negotiate an end to the Persian Gulf War and the Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan.

[452] Article: “George H.W. Bush Stood Out as Tough Negotiator on the World Stage.” By Pamela Falk. CBS News, December 2, 2018. Last updated 12/3/2018. <www.cbsnews.com>

As ambassador to the U.N. from March 1971 until January 1973, Mr. Bush cut his teeth in global diplomacy during a period when the U.S. remained mired in Vietnam and the Cold War began to enter a new phase.

Mr. Bush remains the only U.S. president to have served as U.N. ambassador, and his presidency became a study in foreign policy crisis management and high-stakes diplomacy, skills he had honed at the United Nations.

[453] Article: “U.S. Refusal to Pay UN Dues Could Prove Embarrassing.” By Liz Sly. Chicago Tribune, September 24, 1990. <www.chicagotribune.com>

The debt originates with a Reagan administration policy started in the mid-1980s and backed by Congress to withhold dues from the UN …. [T]he Bush administration is asking Congress to cut through the red tape of the budgetary process to pay the UN at least some of the money. President Bush has told Congress the unpaid dues to the UN are one of his highest budgetary priorities, congressional officials say.

[454] Article: “Bush Would Pay Off U.N. Debt Over 5 Years.” By Paul Lewis. New York Times, February 3, 1990. <www.nytimes.com>

In his new budget proposals, President Bush has asked Congress to approve a plan for paying off the country’s debts to the United Nations and specialized agencies over the next five years….

To assure Congress that the money will not be wasted, the Bush Administration wants to attach conditions to the payments that the United Nations says it cannot accept because the money is legally owed. … United Nations officials say that as a matter of principle, they cannot allow the United States to attach conditions.

For the second year, the Bush Administration has asked Congress to pay the United States’ full assessed contribution to the United Nations….

In his budget message to Congress, President Bush said his decision to seek full funding for the United Nations and to begin paying off debts reflected the Administration’s support for the organization. He spoke of “increasingly important United States foreign policy objectives that can be served through the effective use of multilateral institutions.”

Last year Congress failed to heed the President’s request, cutting the country’s regular budget contribution to the United Nations and refusing to pay any arrears at all.

[455] Entry: “George H.W. Bush.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 28, 1999. Updated 12/1/18. <www.britannica.com>

“Bush was named UN special envoy for the disaster resulting from the Indian Ocean tsunami.”

[456] Paper: “Sources of Change in the United States–United Nations Relations.” By Lise Morje Howard. Global Governance, 2010. Pages 485–503. <www.jstor.org>

Page 491: “[T]he United States decided not to seek a Security Council vote in March 1999 before initiating the NATO bombing of the Serbs in the Kosovo dispute. This was because the United States feared that its attempts to counteract ethnic cleansing in Kosovo would be vetoed by Russia….”

[457] Entry: “Bill Clinton.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 28, 1999. Updated 10/17/18. <www.britannica.com>

“The following year [2005], after a tsunami in the Indian Ocean had caused widespread death and devastation, Bill Clinton was appointed by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to serve as a special envoy for relief efforts, a position he held until 2007.”

[458] Entry: “Bill Clinton.” Encyclopedia Britannica, July 28, 1999. Updated 10/17/18. <www.britannica.com>

“Later that year [2009] he was named a UN special envoy to Haiti. In the wake of the devastating earthquake that struck that country in January 2010, Clinton’s UN portfolio was expanded to include overseeing aid efforts and reconstruction.”

[459] Article: “U.S. to Join U.N. Human Rights Council, Reversing Bush Policy.” By Colum Lynch. Washington Post, March 31, 2009. <www.washingtonpost.com>

The Bush administration refused to join the new rights body [Human Rights Council], saying it was not convinced that it represented much of an improvement over its predecessor. John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations when the council was created, said at the time that the United States would have more “leverage in terms of the performance of the new council” by not participating in it and thus signaling a rejection of “business as usual.”

[460] Article: “U.S. Joins Rights Panel After a Vote at the U.N.” By Neil MacFarquhar. New York Times, May 12, 2009. <www.nytimes.com>

“The Bush administration considered the Human Rights Council beyond redemption because of the group’s repeated focus on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians under occupation while playing down significant human rights failings among its members.”

[461] Article: “Chirac: Iraq War Undermined U.N.” CNN, September 23, 2003. <www.cnn.com>

The United States and its allies sought explicit Security Council authorization to use force against Iraq, warning that Baghdad was defying U.N. resolutions demanding it give up chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.

But the Security Council was unable to reach a consensus on the matter, and a U.S.-led army invaded Iraq in March without the blessing of the United Nations.

[462] Article: “U.S. to Join U.N. Human Rights Council, Reversing Bush Policy.” By Colum Lynch. Washington Post, March 31, 2009. <www.washingtonpost.com>

The Obama administration decided Tuesday to seek a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, reversing a decision by the Bush administration to shun the United Nations’ premier rights body to protest the influence of repressive states. …

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said: “Those who suffer from abuse and oppression around the world, as well as those who dedicate their lives to advancing human rights, need the council to be balanced and credible.” She said the United States seeks election to the body “because we believe that working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.”

[463] Article: “U.S. Joins Rights Panel After a Vote at the U.N.” By Neil MacFarquhar. New York Times, May 12, 2009. <www.nytimes.com>

The United States won a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday, joining a group that the Bush administration had pilloried. …

But the Obama administration decided that it could be more effective in changing the council’s behavior if it joined the organization.

“While we recognize that the Human Rights Council has been a flawed body that has not lived up to its potential,” Ms. Rice said, “we are looking forward to working from within with a broad cross section of member states to strengthen and reform the council.”

[464] Press release: “Loss of U.S. Vote at UNESCO.” U.S. Department of State, November 8, 2013. <2009-2017.state.gov>

We regret that today the United States lost its vote in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Conference as a result of legislative restrictions that have precluded payment of U.S. dues to UNESCO. The restrictions were triggered when UNESCO member states voted to grant the Palestinians membership as a state in 2011.

[465] Report: “The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).” By Luisa Blanchfield and Marjorie Ann Brown. Congressional Research Service, March 18, 2013. <fas.org>

Page 1:

The Obama Administration actively opposes Palestinian membership in UNESCO [UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization]. It argues that Palestinian statehood can only be realized through direct negotiation between Israel and Palestinians, and not through membership in international organizations. At the same time, the Administration maintains that U.S. participation in UNESCO is in the interest of the United States and that the government should continue to fund and participate in the organization. In his FY2013 budget proposal, President Obama requested $78.968 million in assessed contributions for UNESCO and stated that the Administration intended to work with Congress to “waive” the funding restrictions.

[466] Article: “U.S. Withdrawal From the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).” By Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service Insight, October 17, 2017. <fas.org>

Page 2 (of PDF): The Obama Administration asked Congress to support legislation that would provide authority to waive the legislative restrictions; Congress did not enact such a waiver. … In November 2013, as a result of the financial withholding, the United States lost its vote in the UNESCO General Conference.”

[467] Report: “Climate Change: Frequently Asked Questions About the 2015 Paris Agreement.” By Jane A. Leggett and Richard K. Lattanzio. Congressional Research Service, June 28, 2017. <digital.library.unt.edu>

Summary: “Obama Administration officials stated that the PA [Paris Agreement] is not a treaty requiring Senate advice and consent to ratification. President Obama signed an instrument of acceptance on behalf of the United States on August 29, 2016, without submitting it to Congress.”

Page 14:

What Actions Did the United States Take to Join the PA?

The United States completed a number of steps necessary to become a Party to the PA. First, the United States became a Party to the umbrella treaty, the UNFCCC, when it entered into force in 1994. The United States participated as a UNFCCC Party in the 21st meeting of the COP when it adopted the PA by consensus, on December 12, 2015.

The United States became a signatory of the PA when Secretary of State John Kerry signed the PA on behalf of the United States on April 22, 2016. On August 29, 2016, President Obama, on behalf of the United States, signed an instrument of acceptance of the PA, effectively providing U.S. consent to be bound by the PA. He deposited that instrument of acceptance directly with U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon on September 3, 2016. The United States became a Party to the PA when it entered into force on November 4, 2016.

[468] Webpage: “President Obama: The United States Formally Enters the Paris Agreement.” By Tanya Somanader. White House, September 3, 2016. <obamawhitehouse.archives.gov>

Today, the United States and China deposited with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon their respective instruments to join the Paris Agreement, marking a significant contribution towards the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Today’s action by the United States and China to formally join is a significant step towards entry into force this year with countries representing around 40 percent of global emissions having now joined and more than 55 countries having already joined or publicly committed to work towards joining the agreement this year.

[469] Webpage: “The Paris Agreement.” United Nations Framework on Climate Change. Accessed March 8, 2018 at <unfccc.int>

“The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016, thirty days after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary.”

[470] Webpage: “Summary of the Paris Agreement.” United Nations Framework on Climate Change. Accessed March 8, 2018 at <unfccc.int>

Long-term temperature goal (Art. 2) – The Paris Agreement, in seeking to strengthen the global response to climate change, reaffirms the goal of limiting global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.”

[471] Report: “Paris Agreement.” United Nations Framework on Climate Change, 2015. <unfccc.int>

Pages 2–3:

Article 4

1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.

[472] “Remarks on the Human Rights Council.” By Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley. U.S. Department of State, June 19, 2018. <www.state.gov>

Worse than that, the Human Rights Council has become an exercise in shameless hypocrisy—with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored, and some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself. …

A mere look around the world today demonstrates that the council has failed in its stated objectives.

Its membership includes authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela.

There is no fair or competitive election process, and countries have colluded with one another to undermine the current method of selecting members.

And the council’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel is unconscionable. Since its creation, the council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined.

[473] Article: “US Withdraws from UN Human Rights Council.” By Conor Finnegan. ABC News, June 19, 2018. <abcnews.go.com>

The U.S. will withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley announced Tuesday. …

After repeated warnings by the Trump administration, Haley said, “Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded.”

The administration has argued that the body, which issues a report on Israel at every session, is inherently biased against the U.S. ally. But it’s also criticized it for including repressive regimes among its ranks and not speaking out against member states.

[474] Article: “U.S. Withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council Over Perceived Bias Against Israel.” By Carol Morell. Washington Post, June 19, 2018. <www.washingtonpost.com>

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

A year ago, she [Haley] denigrated it as a “forum for politics, hypocrisy and evasion,” and threatened a U.S. exit if the council did not kick out abusive regimes and remove Item 7, the standing resolution critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

[475] Article: “How Climate Change Will Destroy Our Global Heritage.” By Amy Davidson Sorkin. New Yorker, June 1, 2016. <www.newyorker.com>

‘We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs,’ Donald Trump promised last week, in his ‘America First Energy Plan.’

[476] “Outline of Donald J. Trump’s Economic Vision: Winning the Global Competition.” Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. Accessed March 16, 2018 at <assets.donaldjtrump.com>

Page 3 (of PDF):

4. Energy Reform—

• Rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.

• Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.

• Ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline.

• Make land in the Outer Continental Shelf available to produce oil and natural gas.

• Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs. …

[477] Report: “President Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement Raises Legal Questions: Part 1.” Congressional Research Service, June 9, 2017. <digital.library.unt.edu>

Page 1 (of PDF):

On June 1, President Trump announced his long-anticipated decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement—an international agreement intended to reduce the effects of climate change by maintaining global temperatures “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels[.]” As analyzed in this earlier report and live CRS seminar, historical practice suggests it is within the President’s constitutional authority to withdraw from the Paris Agreement without first receiving congressional or senatorial approval. However, legal questions remain as to how the Trump Administration will implement the withdrawal and what role the United States will play in future international climate meetings.

[478] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1997.” U.S. House of Representatives, 105th Congress (1997–1998). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Paul, Ron [R-TX] (Introduced 3/20/97) …

Repeals: (1) the United Nations Participation Act of 1945; (2) the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act; (3) the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Act; and (4) the United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973.

Requires closure of the United States Mission to the United Nations (UN). Requires the Secretary of State to notify the UN of U.S. withdrawal from it.

Prohibits the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN.

Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and (2) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Bars U.S. armed forces from serving under UN command.

Prohibits the use of any U.S. facility or property by the UN or any of its affiliated agencies. Repeals diplomatic immunity for foreign UN employees.

Requires the Secretary to notify the UN of the U.S. withdrawal from membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and the UN Environment Program Participation.

[479] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1999.” U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress (1999–2000). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Paul, Ron [R-TX] (Introduced 3/17/99) …

Repeals: (1) the United Nations Participation Act of 1945; (2) the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act; (3) the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Act; and (4) the United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973. Directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body.

Requires closure of the United States Mission to the UN.

Prohibits the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN.

Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and (2) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Bars U.S. armed forces from serving under UN command.

Prohibits the use of any U.S. facility or property by the UN or any of its affiliated agencies. Repeals diplomatic immunity for foreign UN employees (including families or servants of such employees).

Terminates the United States: (1) membership in World Health Organization (WHO); and (2) participation in all conventions and-or agreements with the UN.

Declares that nothing in this Act shall affect the rights regarding reemployment of employees with the Government after service with an international organization.

Requires the Secretary of State to notify the UN of the provisions of this Act.

[480] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2001.” U.S. House of Representatives, 107th Congress (2001–2002). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Paul, Ron [R-TX] (Introduced 3/21/01) …

Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws. Directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. Requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN.

Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN; (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Bars U.S. armed forces from serving under UN command.

[481] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.” U.S. House of Representatives, 108th Congress (2003–2004). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Paul, Ron [R-TX] (Introduced 3/6/03) …

Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws. Directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. Requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN.

Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN; (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Bars U.S. armed forces from serving under UN command.

[482] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2005.” U.S. House of Representatives, 109th Congress (2005–2006). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Paul, Ron [R-TX] (Introduced 3/8/05) …

Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws. Directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. Requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN. Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN; (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Bars U.S. Armed Forces from serving under UN command.

[483] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007.” U.S. House of Representatives, 110th Congress (2007–2008). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Paul, Ron [R-TX] (Introduced 2/16/07) …

Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws. Directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. Requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN. Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN; (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Bars U.S. Armed Forces from serving under UN command.

[484] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009.” U.S. House of Representatives, 111th Congress (2009–2010). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Paul, Ron [R-TX] (Introduced 2/24/09) …

Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws. Directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. Requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN. Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN; (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Bars U.S. Armed Forces from serving under UN command.

[485] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009.” U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress (2011–2012). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Paul, Ron [R-TX] (Introduced 3/17/11) …

Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws. Directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations (UN), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. Requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN. Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN; (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Bars U.S. Armed Forces from serving under UN command.

[486] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015.” U.S. House of Representatives, 114th Congress (2015–2016). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Rogers, Mike [R-AL] (Introduced 3/2/15) …

Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

Directs the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body.

Requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.

[487] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 193: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017.” U.S. House of Representatives, 115th Congress (2017–2018). Accessed November 13, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Rogers, Mike [R-AL] (Introduced 1/3/17) …

This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.

[488] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 1835: Prohibition of United Nations Taxation Act.” U.S. House of Representatives, 115th Congress (2017–2018). Accessed November 13, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Mooney, Alexander [R-WV] (Introduced 3/30/17) …

This bill prohibits the United States from paying any voluntary or assessed contribution to the United Nations or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies: (1) if the U.N. attempts to implement or impose any taxation or fee on any U.S. person or attempts to borrow funds from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), the International Monetary Fund, or any other similar or regional international financial institution; and (2) unless the President certifies to Congress by 15 days before such payment that the U.N. is not engaged in any effort to develop, advocate, promote, or publicize any proposal concerning taxation or fees on any U.S. person to raise revenue for the U.N.

[489] Webpage: “Summary of House Resolution 11: Objection to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 as an Obstacle to Israeli–Palestinian Peace, and for Other Purposes.” U.S. House of Representatives, 115th Congress (2017–2018). Accessed December 8, 2018 at <www.congress.gov>

Sponsor: Royce, Edward [R-CA] (Introduced 1/03/17) …

Passed House without amendment (01/05/2017) …

Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334:

• undermined the long-standing U.S. position to oppose and veto Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues or that are one-sided and anti-Israel;

• undermines the prospect of Israelis and Palestinians resuming productive, direct negotiations; and

• contributes to the politically motivated acts of boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel and represents a concerted effort to extract concessions from Israel outside of direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, which must be actively rejected.

Such resolution characterizes Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and demands cessation of settlement activities.

Declares that:

• any future measures taken in international or outside organizations to impose an agreement including the recognition of a Palestinian state will set back the cause of peace, harm the security of Israel, run counter to the enduring bipartisan consensus on strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship, and weaken support for such organizations;

• a sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties resulting in a Jewish, democratic state living next to a demilitarized Palestinian state in peace and security;

• the United States should work to facilitate direct negotiations between the parties without preconditions toward a peace agreement; and

• the U.S. government should oppose and veto future Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues or that are one-sided and anti-Israel. Declares that the House opposes Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Calls for such resolution to be repealed or fundamentally altered.

[490] Resolution 2334. United Nations Security Council, December 23, 2016. <www.un.org>

The Security Council, …

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, …

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines, …

Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace; …

Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard; …

Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-State solution….

Just Facts | 641 Shunpike Rd #286 | Chatham, NJ 07928 | Contact Us

Copyright © Just Facts. All rights reserved.
Just Facts is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization.
Information provided by Just Facts is not legal, tax, or investment advice.
justfacts.com | justfactsdaily.com