When international law and religion goes horribly wrong

February 4th, 2009 • Funny, Law, Religion
Tags: international-law, Left Behind, NWO, OWG, Religion, UN

Slacktivist has a great post on the ludicrous views espoused and believed by some Christians in the USA. Their obsession with the all-powerful UN would be almost laughable if they weren’t so influential in stymying the development of international law. I particularly find it amusing how they like encouraging some ‘end times signs’ (eg. encouraging war in the Middle East) but then try the best to ‘limit the powers’ of the UN over the US. If they really thought one world government was a precursor to the end, and the UN was the route to that government, surely they’d be the biggest proponents of regional co-operation, merging of currencies etc?

Popularity: 1% [?]

UN bureaucracy begins at the entrance

January 20th, 2009 • Funny, UN
Tags: bureaucracy, Funny, UN

Alex Evans has a very funny post over at Global Dashboard on the difficulty of (literally) entering the United Nations.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Universal Human Rights Index of UN Documents

December 16th, 2008 • Human Rights, Law, UN
Tags: bookmarked, database, Human Rights, UN

I’m bookmarking The Universal Human Rights Index of UN Documents looks like it could be a good resource for later. Information wants to be free.

Popularity: 1% [?]

UN Audiovisual Library of International Law

November 22nd, 2008 • Law, UN
Tags: international-law, UN, videos

The UN recently launched their online Audiovisual Library of International Law. It looks like it could be an interesting resource for interested parties, containing lectures, historic documents and other online materials. Hat tip: International Law Reporter.

Popularity: 2% [?]

More on Security Council Referral to the ICC

November 9th, 2008 • Africa, Law, UN
Tags: darfur, icc, international-law, jurisdiction, Security Council, sudan, UN

Innomawire has a summary of some of the issues facing the ICC in relation to Sudan in a recent post. It does a good job of outlining some of the issues arising out of the fragmented nature of international law and the inter-relation of treaties.

I wonder though about this section:

The President of the ICC, Philippe Kirsch, and the then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, each representing his institution, finally signed this agreement on 4 October 2004. This came after both the Assembly of States Parties of the ICC and the General Assembly of the UN had approved the draft agreement, respectively on 7 and 13 September 2004. Article 2(3) of this Agreement commits both the UN and the ICC to respect each other’s status and mandate. One could therefore argue that all member states of the UN are bound by this agreement, which obligates them to respect the provisions of the Rome Statute. While this Agreement does not establish a direct ICC jurisdiction over UN members, it implies the acceptance, by the UN, of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Rome Statute. Should the UN Security Council therefore refer to the ICC the situation arising from events in a member state, such as Sudan, in accordance with this prerogative it has accepted in the Rome Statute, that state has to respect and abide by that referral because of its membership of the UN.

I would be doubtful about any attempts to interpret the Realtionship Agreement as a source of binding law on UN member states. First, I’m not sure “respecting” the status and mandate of the Rome Statute requires full co-operation with the ICC.

Second, and more importantly, the agreement seems to be more akin to a relationship between two international legal institutions as opposed to an agreement between their members. As the UN and ICC have separate legal personality from their member States, they can enter into agreements binding on the institutions without impacting directly the rights and obligations of their members. The terms of the UN-ICC Agreement seem to relate much more to the institutional relationship.

That isn’t to say that UN members don’t have to abide by the referral, the broad powers the Security Council has under Chapter VII allows it to bind UN members in precisely the way it did in the referral. Though a somewhat novel exercise of Security Council power, it has tangential precedent in the establishment of the ICTR and ICTY.

Perhaps more interesting is how the Prosecutor is meant to exercise its power under the referral, given that the Security Council resolution doesn’t conform exactly to the requirements of the Rome Statute. Are the non-conforming aspects severable? Additionally, did Rome Statute signatories break their good faith duty to the ICC by voting for this problematic resolution?

Popularity: 2% [?]

IIL: The Role of the Secretariat

August 19th, 2008 • Law, Trade, UN
Tags: IIL-series, secretariats, UN, wto

Over the winter I visited Geneva for two weeks studying Institutions in International Law, this post is part of a series on what I learnt and thought about the institutions we visited. See them all here.

The job of the Secretariat of an international institution is to provide administrative support to the institution. This means it provides information, studies and research to allow the institution to carry on its functions, organises the conferences and meetings of the Members, consults with Members, helps to resolve disputes, and sometimes provides assistance for Members who need it.

Some Secretariats are well-known and relatively interventionist, the WTO and UN Secretariats come to mind as high-profile bodies who drive a great deal of policy making and action within their institutions. For example, the UN Secretary-General, under Kofi Annan, produced the Peoples’ Report in 2000 which ultimately led to the Millennium Declaration.

There’s debate over the autonomy given to some Secretariats, whether they should be allowed to actively pursue their own agenda or should be restrained by the Members’ wishes. This obviously raises issues of accountability and good governance if an unelected Secretariat is shaping and pushing the agenda of an institution.

Perhaps one of the crucial most roles for the Secretariat, however, is to act as the ‘institutional memory’ of an international institution. Whereas, Member representatives may come and go, the Secretariat’s staff is relatively stable. It is the Secretariat who know the procedure and how things work. They know intimately the history of an organisation, what is realistic and what is unachievable. This role is critical to the proper functioning of any institution.

What the Secretariat does ultimately demonstrate, is that these institutions are more then just the some of their Members. That they aren’t just forums for discussion and negotiation of certain issues. Rather they are actors in their own right, and who is in charge can make a real difference to the direction and results of the work of the institution.

Popularity: 1% [?]