# data[].attributes.headline
Presentation: Human rights and humanitarian intervention

# data[].attributes.subject
Presentation: Human rights and humanitarian intervention

# data[].attributes.body
International Humanitarian Law: There is differences between HR and Intl humanitarian law (laws of war). Both focus on protecting human dignity.
Responsibility of states to prevent.
In the 1860s the start of ICRH. The battle of Solferino.
THE POSITION OF NEUTRALITY .

Solidarity Centralization and Impartiality.
The Geneva conventions: Improved the humanitarian practices during WWII. 1949

Semantics
Just in Bellum: Threshold of violence, is justified? who should fight it? are some states more qualified than others?
Competences and non competences
Proportionality

IHL (laws of war): One of the oldest forms of law. One of the harshest criticisms for this is that it makes law more militarized. Rather than being a deterrent, it could act not as an incentive, but sort of taking away some of the strong costs of war.

John McCain was one of the main proponents of IHL because he was a war prisioner.

Article 4: The ICRC refuses to use the word, Civil War. They call it "non international war" the entire of the Geneva Convention is related to intra state war (which was the basis for the foundation of the UN)
About 5% of the Geneva conventions refer to non-international war which are now the main business. The problem is that the participants in non-international war would not show up in Geneva to discuss war.

The decision about of going to war and the conduct of war:
1. Just cause. (how can you define this?)
2. Right intention. (how can you define right intentions?)
3. Last resort
4. Proportionality.
5. Probability of success
6. Right authority
(this list is consequential) we will encounter the same 6 notions in the R2P

Are these black and white? easy to implement?

The tribunals are important after the WWII to implement the notion of IHL and were established on an ad hoc basis to address the Balkans and Yugoslavia.

# data[].attributes.body
Sovereignty:
1. Territory
2. Public authority
3. Population

Chapter 7 U.N
The U.N may intervene in internal affairs when needed.

# data[].attributes.headline
3 Theories related to international organizations

# data[].attributes.subject
3 Theories related to international organizations

# data[].attributes.body
REALISM: Propensity to conflict (no authority.) Primary motivation: struggle for power.
States as enemies.

LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM: Why do states cooperate?
Mitigate conflict.
The initial areas of cooperation were trade and health issues.

IDEALIST (CONSTRUCTIVIST)
Ideas, norms, principles.
What is inside of states, explains a lot of the reasons for states to cooperate.
States as friends

FUNCTIONALISM
Is there a way to focus on what unites states rather than its differences?
-Culture
-Education
-Industry

ENGLISH SCHOOL
Gives more relevance to history than the other approaches. Explains better the picture of why states cooperate.
States not as enemies, but as allies.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the implications of UNILATERALISM?

According to lawyers: illegality

1. Invasion of Irak: Illegal.
2. Invasion of Kosovo: Illegal but necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
According to lawyers: Peace loving states.

The definition of the international community is not clear.  It is necessary to understand
1. Who is part of it?
NGOs? IGOs? media? civil society?

# data[].attributes.body
How do we recognise a law?

What is the difference between international and domestic laws?

How do we recognise a norm?

HARD COMPONENT OF LAW:
Authority
Codification
Courts
(2 more)

SOFT COMPONENT OF LAW:
The most disputed version. Culture, agreements.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Operational: Use more than 95% of the resources. (field)

2. Idealist: Policymaking (headquarters.)

FAO-UNESCO-UNICEF
Agents or actors?
To what extent are they protagonists?

Weiss: "There is still more room for initiative (idealism) that it is thought."

# data[].attributes.body
How can we define success?

1. Accomplishment of expectations
2. Timeframe. i.e., how can we assess the U.N intervention in East Timor? Are we looking to the first two years? The whole process?

# data[].attributes.headline
When intervention is not in conflict with the concept of sovereignty?

# data[].attributes.subject
When intervention is not in conflict with the concept of sovereignty?

# data[].attributes.body
1. By invitation. When countries need help.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The inclusion of digital cooperation is innovative.
2. As compared to the 60th anniversary declaration(when the UN established the HR Council) , this one is shorter and has less specifics.
3. Pay attention to the involvement of the 4 pillars (Security, Development and Environment) in the declaration.

# data[].attributes.headline
Discussing the IR theoretical traditions view on institutions

# data[].attributes.subject
Discussing the IR theoretical traditions view on institutions

# data[].attributes.body
Realism: Whatever different from billiard balls is realism.

Liberal institutionalism: Institutions were not conceived as buildings or organizations per se.  Nye and Keohane borrowed the sociological conception of institution --> More related to regimes.

Constructivism: How to take one idea (realism) to the next level?

English School: Has a good approach to institutions as bringing enemies to convert them  into rivals.

Any of these traditions would consider Consequences versus Appropriateness when thinking of what matters the most. For instance in Human Rights:

Option 1: Principles are sacred
Option 2: You make calculations to get the best.

Rosenau

'The two notions matter'.

# data[].attributes.body
Barnett: Intl organizations exert power through:

1. Setting the agenda.
2. Monitoring (follow up.)
3. Dispute resolution
4. Which one was it?????

# data[].attributes.body
High politics: Big issues, essential for the survival of the state
Low politics: Trivial
Where is the line?????
It is very hard to draw it.

Is it a priority for states? why do states become members of institutions?

# data[].attributes.body
Delimitations: i.e.,Geographical, religious.
Purpose: i.e., Human rights, environment

Pan American Health Organization limited to the Americas versus the WHO.

# data[].attributes.body
The classical distribution considered in the UN Charter between the 193 countries and the secretariat and staff (first and second UN.)

There's a third UN which comprises NGOs and the civil society which has facilitated the work of the UN.

The article 71 of the Charter, considers the arrangements for consultations of UN agencies with NGOs. It is impossible to talk about any process of the UN without speaking of non-state actors.

# data[].attributes.body
Problems: Recruitment can be political.
There's not enough geographical representation.
Gender distribution has improved.

POLITICAL POSITIONS
Secretary general (SG) (only one)
Deputy SG (only for the general secretariat.
Under SG - Most of the chairs held by P5

Assistant SG
Director 2 to D1
Professional 5 to P1 Horrible entry level exams to get in (why are we told this?)
General service 7 to 1: Staff, interpreters, security.

# data[].attributes.body
Link

Since its creation in 1945, there have been few changes. It was agreed to revise its contents after 10 years but this hasn't happened.

There are some contradictions in some parts of the charter. For instance, in chapter 1 it mentions 'human rights' and at the same time 'the use of force.'

Sometimes diplomatic efforts are about keeping people happy.

Chapter 2 - Membership
Only Indonesia withdrew briefly and South Africa was sanctioned.

Chapter 3 -
Trusteship council, no longer exists. Its main function was to facilitate the independence of colonial states.

Chapter 5 - Security council
There have been 3 constitutional changes and many interpretations.

Chapter 6 and 7
Peacekeeping is not part of the charter, it is a gray area between this two chapters.
.
.
.
And so on

# data[].attributes.body
The General Assembly is now via Zoom.
This will leave out some of the contacts delegates used to have with each other...

Usually the only motivations of states to participate in the GA speeches were to be in the headlines of their local newspapers.

# data[].attributes.body
Kellog Brian pact (to outlaw war): Supposedly, grew out of WWI.
In collective security, countries use deterrence to contain the automatic response to aggression.

However, what it's written in the Charter differs greatly from the reality. That is because, for example US law and dispositions can be override by an external agreement.

# data[].attributes.body
How accurate is it to call peacekeeping Chapter 6.5? isn't it more accurate to call it Chapter 7?

After 1990s, peacekeeping leaned more towards chapter 7 (peace enforcement.)

What would motivate states to participate in a peacekeeping operation?
This has to be analysed time by time. Each circumstance is different, however, geographical factors prevail, some countries are 'good citizens' and other (specially developing countries) want their armies to "get the experience" and to "get incomes (leveraging on exchange rate)"

More than collective security it has to be called collective voluntarism.

# data[].attributes.body
The battle between sovereignty and interference.
The security council has always been divided.

1. What is a threat?
2. What is self-defense?

Humanitarian disasters are also called threats to international security... from then on, AIDS, climate change and so on.

What is the difference between preemptive and preventive?

How effective can the security council be when one of the P5 is the attacker?

# data[].attributes.body
Initially regional agreements didn't make any actions. ASEAN does some intermediation.

# data[].attributes.body
GA can control funding of operations.

Make recommendations and financial control.

What is the politics between GA and security council?

-Revolve around regional alliances
-Attempts to appease the P5

Now there's a department of political affairs which is in charge of peacekeeping operations. It is divided between peacekeeping and others (diplomacy?)

# data[].attributes.body
Horizontal, in spite of the difference in budgets. UN is a dysfunctional family.
Most of the conversation happens between ECOSOC and the Security Council.

When talking about the UN and making analyses always check the organization chart to understand what's going on.

The World Bank and the IMF have virtually nothing to do with the UN (they are separated from the budget.)

Some problems with the current UN organization:

It is not clear who's responsible for what.

It has been proposed to create an agency to deal with low politics.

This chart wasn't designed, it has rather been adapted along the UN history and usually adds agencies rather than substract.

It is very hard to understand because for example the main operations of UN Women is outside of the UN.

Agencies report to the states.

# data[].attributes.body
The two central bodies to directly safeguard peace are the Security Council

and the General Assembly.

Chapter V of the UN Charter designates the Security

Council as the organ primarily responsible for maintaining international peace

and security.

The three roles of the General Assembly in the Peacekeeping a security process can be boild down into three areas:

1. Financing

2. Monitoring

3. Perhaps the only “stick” the “GA” wields is the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution

1. As all UN Member States share the costs of peacekeeping, The General Assembly, through its Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) approves and oversees the peacekeeping budget. This includes how specific field operations are funded and equipped, based on detailed submissions provided to it by the UN Secretary-General.

2. The General Assembly monitors the performance of UN Peacekeeping through its Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations.

3. Thanks to the passage of the Uniting for Peace Resolution in 1950, the General Assembly's role in relation to international peace and security increased. In circumstances in which the Security Council is unable to act, the General Assembly has taken measures in accordance with the purpose and spirit of the world organization's

Charter. While only the Security Council can make decisions that are binding on member states, the assembly can make recommendations relating to international peace and security.

The assembly has played a role over the years in debating actions against South Africa and Israel, approving action in the Suez crisis because effective action in the Security Council had been blocked by France and Britain; earlier that year, the assembly had censured Moscow's use of armed force in Hungary. Another use was in 1960, after the Security Council became deadlocked over the Congo operation because the Soviet Union and the United States supported different sides in the conflict.

Issues:

1. Financing- Congo

2. Resolutions not carrying legal force such as – the 1961 resolution outlawing the use of nuclear weapons

3. Significance- definitely be argued that the GA where every member state is represented, serves as a

more open forum for discussion.

Next actor is the:

Secretary General- this leadership position is approved by General Assembly but recommended by P-5.

The secretary-general organizes and directs staff, mediates disputes, negotiations between or among warring

parties, and oversees the deployment of UN-sponsored forces.

Article 99 of the UN Charter makes it possible for the secretary-general to "bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security;' although it has only been invoked three

times.

Issues:

1. Preserving credibility in peacekeeping

The SG is the guardian or trustee of a precious and carefully nurtured resource, whose usefulness depends on its continuing credibility. Preserving that credibility is no easy task: on the one hand, the Secretary-General has to try to ensure that peacekeepers are not deployed in conditions where failure is likely; on the other hand, he has to avoid appearing so cautious as to create doubts about the real usefulness of the United Nations or provide a pretext for member states to return to the bad old ways of unilateral military action.

2. Command and control and /// Perception in peacekeeping.

No enforcement operation has yet taken place under United Nations command and control. Instead, in Korea and Kuwait and, initially, Somalia, the Security Council has authorized certain member states to use force to ensure compliance with its decisions. However, the Secretary- General recommended that the new United Nations operation in Somalia, which is under Chapter VII of the Charter, should be under United Nations command and control, though using elements from the headquarters which had already been established by the United States-led force in Somalia.

But, like the command in Bosnia, this arrangement may raise questions about the extent to which the operation is-or is perceived to be- really under the United Nations and not controlled in reality by the member states contributing to the bulk of its troops.

3. Appeasing P-5 countries by adopting Pe-emptive definitions

or broadening definitions?

In 2004, the UN Secretary Generals High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges

and Change attempted to address the problem of ‘pre-emptive self defense’ by calling for legalizing the use of armed force in a "preventive" manner to eliminate the potential for horrific terrorist attacks as long as such use of force against terrorist sanctuaries is authorized by the UN Security Council.

The final actor closely tied to the SG is the secretariat.

The secretariat provides economic and political analysis, conducts research, communicates with non-state actors such as media and non-government organizations and turns tasks into operations.

Key issues:

1. The UN secretariat has over the years accumulated considerable experience

with protomilitary ventures, such as observation and peacekeeping.  BUT No significant military advisory bureaucracy has emerged to assist the Secretary-General. Military

advice has been obtained mostly in an ad hoc fashion by borrowing officers from national armies.

- The first is whether it is indeed necessary and desirable to establish in the secretariat a permanent military advisory or operational capacity.

2. Inability to maintain neutrality: Referencing the case study in the Congo-

Instead of neutral peacekeepers, UN forces became an enforcement army for

the central government, which the UN Secretariat created with Western support.

-Some troop contributors resisted UN command and control;

others removed their soldiers to register their objections.

-The Soviet Union, and

later France, refused to pay assessments for the field operation. This phase of the

dispute almost destroyed the UN, and the General Assembly had to suspend voting

for a time to dodge the question of who was overdue on payments and thus who

could vote.

3. Backward approvals process

One of the critiques of the secretariat and SC cooperation is that The problem now is often not to persuade the Security Council to set up a peacekeeping operation but to dissuade it from rushing into doing so when the conditions for success do not yet exist.

4. It goes without saying that there is a need for the Secretariat to enhance its early-warning capability to be better able to serve the Secretary-General and the Council in this area of conflict prevention.

The Department of Political Affairs will have to be further strengthened and resources made available to enable it to make a real contribution to this aspect of the work of the Council. To a certain extent, member States with the capability to do so can assist the Secretariat through regular sharing of vital information pertaining to threats to peace and security but this can, at best, be supplementary in nature and cannot replace its own independent means of information-gathering and analysis.

Discussion questions:

1. Describe the dynamics of GA, Secretariat, Secretary General and Security Council in terms of peace and security building. Use examples from the readings. How could this be explained from the various IR theories?

2. Is the current structuring of actors sufficient to meet peace building and security needs?

- What are its strengths and limitations?

(funding, influence, partisanship)

3. One of the salient features of the reading is that decision making on peacebuilding and security rests with the security council comprised of powerful states voting on intervention in developing countries/ less economic power- Vietnam, DRC, Somalia etc.

Is this a mechanism of collective security? Or to halt adventurism or undue influence by bigger states? Are these (P-5) actors addressing the underlying threats to collective security?

4. What are the core assumption in collective security? And how are they reflected in the interactions of actors?

(All states have the same interests)

5. Would the secretariat be more effective it was given a standing army? Would this address key pit falls in collective security?

# data[].attributes.body
Divided in:

Earmarked (57%) has requirements set by the donor. It allows for control- specific programs or regions, what the money can or cannot be spent on, etc. It can be strict or offer limited wiggle room. Assessed (26%) is a required membership fee, therefore involuntary.
There's also Voluntary core (9%) and Fees (8%).

States contribute in earnmarked budget with the aim of defining the agenda of the agency. Most of the funding comes from this.

The agencies with the largest revenue:
DPKO (members have to pay a lot)
WFP, UNDP, UNICEF and WFP gets a lot of money from humanitarian contributions.

WHO ISSUE
The WHO's budget is 1/2 of NYC public health department.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The exam is two hours.
2. Not open book.
3. The exam will be sent around noon. It has to be sent back by 5pm.
4. It is one question exam (10 questions, a two hour test on one question)
5. Test your ability to create an argument with a limited timeframe on something. Summarize the argument, defend the argument.
6. The exam will be proofread and commented.

# data[].attributes.headline
UN security council decisions after 2001

# data[].attributes.subject
UN security council decisions after 2001

# data[].attributes.body
P5 US, UK, France, Russia and China.
Belgium DR, Germany Indonesia and South Africa, Stonia, Niger, Vietnam.

Decision are technical administrative and strategic.

2001 R2P introduced to the community of nations. Normative thinking, is theoretical and aspirational.
The humanitarian agenda shifted to central state in 1990s.

If the norms and values represented by R2P are embedded in international relations. St Augustine, after justice is gone, the kingdom is about robbery. NATO was unique as the first organism with multilateral approach... is not the first one, the Pelopponesian wars alliances demonstrated that that existed.

What is the role of democracy?
Will the security council learn from history lessons?

CRITICISMS MADE TO THE UN

The process--not the product is the most important consideration.  There have never been firm rules or procedures since 1946. The security council has tried to balanced it through some whistles.

THE AREA FORMULA: To bring no participant voices. The security council started bringing informal meetings... in these meetings some unrepresented countries started participating and nowadays is obligatory.

Is a way of doing businesses without changing the charter.
You need to have the concurrent vote of all of the members, it has been interpreted, if you are not in veto, you are agreeing.

The Libyan operation had 5 abstentions... but still the intervention was conducted.
Presidential statements, they change every month in alphabetic order...
Generic debates about big issues.

Sanctions: The 1990s was the decade of sanctions (it was a new tool being used)
The continuation of the precedent

# data[].attributes.body
2001 - 1368 resolution against the Taliban.
- The UN assumed the role of stabilizing.

Bush multilateralism v.s unilateralism.

The unanimous enthusiasm to support the US quickly evaporated.

What is the role of the humanitarian factor in UN occupations. Collin Powel praised humanitarians, "they are force multipliers for the US military" ?
That made humanitarian personnel military targets.

2003, US authorized to use the force on Iraq without security council permission.

THE ENTHUSIASM FOR AFGHANISTAN AND FOLLOWED BY THE LACK OF ENTHUSIASM IN IRAQ, same happened with Libya.

800 resolutions between 1990 and 2003. Some resolutions don't really matter.
The lack of decision of security council in Kosovo and Iraq made the intervention illegal?
The Kosovo intervention was perceived as illegal but legitimate.
The operation in 2003 was perceived as illegitimate and ilegal.
Peacebuilding became the business of the UN. The aftermath of Iraq became a "blessed" operation (the peacebuilding)

The Brahimi report, the Iraq war moved the direction on peacebuilding.

# data[].attributes.body
3 values of peacekeeping operations. Impartiality, commitment to not violence.
Libya got sanctioned but Gadhafi decided not to stop violence against opposition.

China, Russia, Brazil, Germany, ... abstained.

Does the security council do his job?
CRITICISMS
1. In 2003 the sec council is unable to contain a major power to do what it want to do.
2. The sec council is useless is unable to enforce its resolutions.
3. In Syria, so many refugees and abuses

STILL THE SEC COUNCIL WAS ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WMD.
The voice of the regional commissions (organizations) call for a need to act. This was crucial for the speed the decisions were made in regards to Libya.

Kosovo: It was necessary to force the decision on the security council by exposing China and Russia.  Its better not asking for permission. because they might tell you NO.
Those decisions involve calculations on the value of legitimacy in front of the security council.

If you have to explain that you are humanitarian, you lost the battle.
No matter what you think you are doing, there is a perception that you are doing something else.

# data[].attributes.body
War on terrorism.
The security challenges on the war on terrorism and WMD.
Threats: Any event that leads to mass scale risk.
Six clusters:
1. Economic and social: poverty, infectious diseases, environmental degradation.
2. Interstate conflict: Genocide, civil wars, nuclear weapons. From 1997 conflicts have become more complex.  (social media helps)
3. Politics of exclusion.
4. Right as self defense was legitimally recognized.
5. WMD was not included in the Charter, it was added in a resolution.
Since then only the P5 members can legally have nuclear power. The NPT started working to disarm nuclear countries.

The only that the security council can do is to set sanctions. North Korea... not much to do.

Human rights violations from the United States undermines the legitimacy of its intervention.

USING ACTIONS AGAINST NON-STATE

There is much leakage for regular sanctions. Most leverage may come from a single state: The US sanctions against Iran.

Sanctions against Saddan Hussein ended up affecting the people.

Is there a political value on sanctions against non state actions?
It is hard to get states cooperating against terrorism.

Protecting cultural heritage prevents terrorism to get cash.

# data[].attributes.body
Exam: It is important that the essay the the first of second statement includes an answer to the question.

It is needed to include the definition when one brings a new term (third UN, collective security etc).

In using theory, we need to say more than the title "a Liberal thinks this or that" it is necessary to be clear on that.

There is no need to cite sources like "Bosnia is in Europe" there are things that everybody know.

Not overstate any case. If you find the word always, simply, merely is probably wrong. Someone can always find an exceptions, there is no need for too many adjectives and adverbs.

# data[].attributes.body
It is illustrative of what happend

# data[].attributes.body
Differences between and first and second generations

During WWII the allies support movilization. Roosevelt justified its intervention on a violation to HR.

UN didn't start as an enforcer of HR. Negative rights: what you can and can't do.
Positive rights: access to material benefits (the government acts) education, shelter, social security and an adequate standard of life.

International covenant on economic rights
and covenant in social rights. (communist opposed)

States are the main violators of HR but also the main defenders.

Why has the US and some of the close allies so closely rejected the second generation of HR?

1. Why has the US rejected the positive rights outlined in UNDHR, like the right to healthcare?
2. What does the debate about positive vs. negative rights imply about the universality of UNDHR?
3. What role does cultural relativism play in current interpretations and implementations of UNDHR?
4. As NGOs have become increasingly embedded in the international human rights project as norm entrepreneur, I think there’s a reasonable degree of scrutiny we should evaluate them with. Why do certain NGOs pursue certain rights? What does this mean for how human rights norms will unfold in the future?
5. Can political rights be enjoyed without social rights?

The US had the African American problem, the URSS had the gulags, the UK had the colonies... in the preamble of article 51. The US is still not in the business of dismantling systemic racism and Russia still has the gulags.

HR became harder to control than the signers thought but Institutions also have grown to discuss this problems.
Mainstreaming What are the priorities? social and political first? or simultaneously? There was a big debate on this.
The model for the Universal Declaration was that there should be a bill of rights, there was no agreement. So the discussion became:
Covenant civil and political
Covenant on social and economic

All of these ideas make member states uncomfortable and implement them slowly over time. (The unfinished business)

Arabia and women... is it sufficient to make states ashamed? sometimes it matters more than others, Saudi Arabia can be impervious to criticism.

FIRST Group rights AND SECOND GENERATION OF HR

THIRD AND FOURTH (right to peace, development) GENERATIONS of HR are less

# data[].attributes.body
There is an arena in which the UN activities have revolved around operations where in the HR arena is the opposite: modest construction of machinery, HR has been essentially ideas.

5 ways ideas matter to global values and norms:

Ideas change the way issues are perceived.

Ideas redefine state and non-state interest and goals, setting agendas for action

Ideas mobilize coalitions to press for action

Ideas become embedded in institutions.

Ideas affect implementation

Ideas are important because they define what matter. People use ideas to pull together partners in a way that was not possible before.
The Universal Declaration brought partners, etc.

What do you do with them?
Saudi Arabia may be doing nothing. But other members use pieces of paper to push for action. The World Bank now has to consider enviromental concern as part of their portfolios. Or how women are involved.

Value of UN to ideas
Fount
Font
Framing
Forum
Fanfare: Draw attention to a particular issue
Finance
Following
Funeral

Each of the UN Ideas

Human rights for all- from aspirations to implementation

Gender equality -  from eliminating discrimination to women's empowerment.

Peace and security -  evolving ideas and approaches.

9 ideas that changed the world

1. Human rights for all

2. Gender equality and Women's rights

3. Development Goals

4. Fairer international economic relations

5. Strategies for accelerating development in poorer countries

6. Priorities for social development

7. Environmental sustainability

8. Peace and Human security

9. Human development

The pioneering quality of UN Work is often not realized: Nine nobel prize winners in economics.

1. Jan tinbergen

2. Wassily Leontief

3. Gunnar Myrdal

4. James Meade

5. W. Arthur Lewis and Theodore W. Schultz

6. Lawrence R. Klein

7. Richard Stone

8. Amartya Sen

# data[].attributes.headline
Security council and tensions with Human Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
Security council and tensions with Human Rights

# data[].attributes.body
Cold War: Characterized in terms of realism. R2P was a prevention to genocide. In 1951 only two members of the P5 signed.
Only two situation brought chapter 7 pertaining white minority rule.

In 1991 the SC advocated for the protection of Kurds in Iraq.
EXPLICIT DECLARATION THAT VIOLATION OF HR CREATE A THREAT TO SECURITY.

1992 authorized the use of force in Somalia the civilians have the right to humanitarian assistance.

Humanitarian intervention remains controversial.  When the SC deployed forces in Somalia the key issue was starvation

In 1993 and 1994. The chapter created two adhoc courts. Some individuals were charged for HR violations. The US and China refused to sign for the ICC.

ICC is imbalanced. When it confront powerful states acts differently. It is excessively slow and costly.  Sometimes if you want to get away with murder just be a P5 state.

Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Chechnya... HR in 4 categories

1. Rarely condemn their friends in public. Veto to
2. US protecting Israel
3. Beijing protecting North Korea.

Another tension is missions are rarely

States almost always consider their sovereignty costs.

AMBIGUITY:
The pursue for states interests. US vetoed the violation to HR violations in Yemen. The US has an interest of supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons.
Russia vetoed an investigation on the investigation of the Malaysian airliner. Russia backed rebels in Ukraine.

The SC has a long way to achieve a balance concerning the protection of HR, especially under chapter 7.

QUESTIONS
How can tension between SC and HR be characterized in terms of IR theory?

Compare and contrast the roles of the second and third UN in Human Rights?
In what ways are they more or less effective?

Should the SC have the authority to intervene in the case of preserving HR if it cannot apply an equal standard?

BALANCE BETWEEN THE 3 UNS
What is the role of the second UN?
The third UN has played an important role, Amnesty internatinal, HR Watch, on the advent of the information age. They provide a monitoring function and a way to highlight some issues.

The SC rarely gets involved in HR. The HRC come a make part of the scenes
IF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PICKS UP AN ISSUE BEFOREHAND CAN REACH THE SEC?
USUALLY THE SC ACTS LAST MINUTE.
One of the most courageous member of the second UN.  He became very noisy in reporting genocide in Sudan (Darfur) but the relationship got complicated. But usually they are not that visible. For example the High Commissioner is shy.
THE DECIBELS ARE HIGHER IN THE SECOND UN.

The geopolitical tensions in terms of security in HR protection.

JUAN: It is worth reading the chapter of the handbook on the UN. Natalie Summersinga.
And internatinal judicial sec.
Somewhere in the middle we'll try to distinguish what is HR and the problem of sec council and HR and the humanitarian security  and the magnitude of money going through the UN system.

# data[].attributes.body
More freedom to make noise.
NGOs have been constrained by human rights violators: Putin, Philippines with Freedom House.
In the “Conference on Human Rights"  NGOs were denied participation in countries assembly.

Only the ICRC has been given the status of observer by the UN.

Thomas G Weiss. “The United Nations and Changing World Politics.” iBooks.

The Scramble of NGO (Cooley and Ron)
Fixed time contracts with NGOs motivated exaggeration of results and tolerance with bureaucracy.
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) are a good example of what should be done.

We should recognize the powerful, if often un- acknowledged, role of material incentives, competitive struggles, and tacit col- lusion with uncooperative government officials or local militia.

Weiss, humanitarian business

# data[].attributes.body
Ernst Haas = When HR issues draw private communities agreement, there is enough pressure for change in policies.

The debate between economic development (like in China) versus political rights undermine HR possibility to be widely adopted.

# data[].attributes.body
Realism: Power allocation
Liberalism: Cooperation and interdependence, a win win
Constructivism (ideas and norm entrepreneurs): Our understanding of "Norms" and "humanitarianism" shape our behavior.
Marxism: Economic inequality. Humanitarianism is creating opportunities for exploitation and enrich NGOs
Feminism: Men portrayed as warriors whereas women as  "beautiful souls"

# data[].attributes.body
Barnett: Humanitarianism is becoming politicized. Power is changing what humanitarian organizations do and what they are. However, it is impossible that these organizations are not motivated by political motivations.
Humanitarian organizations now compete for resources! and face demands for efficiency. The outcomes expected are self-sufficiency. Where is the ethics?

Fusion politics-solidarity and governance-may be the newest face of humanitarianism.

EXAMPLE
MSF developed to reduce the cost of anti-retrovirals drew explicitly on a politics of solidarity and governance.

AFTER 1990s, NGOs started to be held accountable for their performance. In Rwanda, in order to impress donors, NGOs gave humanitarian aid to crime perpetrators.

Weiss (The humanitarian business, 2012)
50 million of people in need of humanitarian assistance in early 2012.
Afghanistan after 9/11, nearly half of all donor funding was diverted in response to UN appeals.

the absence of ‘institutional memory’ to inform decision-making based on lessons learned doesn't help.

the system is unnecessarily driven by the ‘humanitarian imperative’ – the moral obligation to treat affected populations similarly and react to crises consistently.

1. who are the ‘we’ to determine whose suffering matters,

2. Erosion of impartiality, independence, neutrality and humanity

# data[].attributes.body
Unpoliticized, work behind the scenes.
Their lack of "presence" of the ICRC made that Doctors Without Borders emerged as an independent group that reports and is active in humanitarian participation.
ICRC cares about consent whereas DWB don't.
ICRC doesn't mind criticism.
During the landmine treaty they "broke" their silence and had to go public with their view on this.

# data[].attributes.body
Three transformations in Humanitarian action

Militarization: The bombing of the IRCR. The fact that militaries participate make it different.

Politization: Humanitarian NGO are force multipliers. NGO were so embedded in what they do that no matter what they do, they are always going to be politicized.

Gill Asher: Part of the High Commissioner of Refugees. What the UN had to do was to send banners in different languages to say that the UN was unpolitical.

Marketization: Involves money.

Some definitions:

Humanitarian action: Has two components, emergency assistance and protection.

Humanitarian: Is what the ICRC does...

Humanitarian space: Describes that the space available can open, shut, expand and contract. Many of the notions on whether humanitarians can do their job is whether they can operate in the areas, that has impact in the size and security of the space.

GRAPHIC

Outside military forces, for-profit firms, UN Organizations, bilateral aid agencies, International NGO, ICRC, International media.

Host government
WAR ZONE
Armed opposition
Aid recipients, civil society and market actions

# data[].attributes.headline
Flow of international resources to a war zone

# data[].attributes.subject
Flow of international resources to a war zone

# data[].attributes.body
Governments financing humanitarian organizations, also finances UN and their own military.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the role of ideas, principals and standards?
The development portion is shrinking and the humanitarian increasing.
Considering the pandemic, the figure for humanitarian will increase for 2020. United States remains the largest donor for humanitarian.

# data[].attributes.body
Why send a military force to enforce a humanitarian effort?
How military should be appropriately deployed?

James Ron
"The proliferation of NGOs is a good idea..."
What is driving the scramble of NGO is money.
There is a mixture of altruism and  opportunism.
"anything the private sector does is more efficient"

# data[].attributes.body
Political struggle for who commands.
The office for coordination has small budget.

# data[].attributes.body
the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) introduced the R2P concept in its report.

In 2005 the UN didn't adopted responsibility to rebuild within.

Prioritizes peaceful over coercive methods, it leaves open the possibility of preventive humanitarian intervention, or military force by outside parties to avert mass atrocities, should all other methods fail.

How can military action ensure protection under R2P?

Paris (2014): Ban Ki Moon three pillars of R2P:

1. Governments should prevent genocide. (domestic)

2. International assistance to protect HR.

3. Coercive measures by outsiders.

Where is the "how" to employ coercive measures?

# data[].attributes.body
Libya in 2011was the first operation justified under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.

HELPED TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THE R2P WITHIN THE SECURITY COUNCIL.

However, resolutions 1970 and 1973 only enacted half of R2P. It demanded that Libya should protect their population but didn't mention anything about the rest of the world's responsibility.
HRC condemned Qadaffis actions against population. Security Council resolution 1973 authorized intervention. NATO intervened and Qatar supported Libyan rebels. The legitimacy of the mission is questionable because of countries' self-interests.

WHERE IS THE OBLIGATION OF STATES TO PROTECT CIVILIANS? it seems that it only gave them the right to violate sovereignty.

Inaction in Syria vetoed by China and Russia

Kenya 2007 2008 - When post-election violence broke out in Kenya in 2007–08, called in to mediate, Kofi Annan saw and handled the crisis in R2P terms.
(Thakur 2015)

# data[].attributes.headline
Codification of humanitarian intervention (law making)

# data[].attributes.subject
Codification of humanitarian intervention (law making)

# data[].attributes.body
It all started with the Humanitarian Intervention in Iraq. How to distinguish truly humanitarian motivations from biased national interests? (Chopra 1992).

States haven't relied on Article's 2 prohibition of force. Instead, they have claimed self-defense and invitation by host governments.

Arguments against and in favor of codifying intervention:
1. Experimentation in history: Russians invading Turkey to protect Christians in the Crimean War, Germans invading Checoslovakia to protect germans, Japanese invading manchuria. (not very humanitarian) / There's not enough historical evidence. Cartageans asked to reduce the human sacrifices to Saturn.

2. Codification would protect the stronger against the weaker. / Clearly defined parameters would deal with this.

3. Thin line between self-interest and humanitarian claims. / Codification would prevent self-interest to prevail.

4. Codifying humanitarian intervention would erode article 2./ By clarifying unlawful action, the law can be enforced easier.

sovereignty is no longer sovereign, the world has outgrown it. P.104

The supremacy of sovereignty over law is untenable. P. 106

The ICRC argued: “In terms of the existing right to assistance, humanitarian assistance cannot be regarded as interference. Far from infringing upon the sovereignty of states, humanitarian assistance  in armed conflicts, as provided for by international law, is, rather, an expression of that sovereignty.”

If sovereignty is dead, intervention is not illegal. If sovereignty is thought as an evolving dispositive, humanitarian intervention can make part of it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Michael Barnett puts it, humanitarian action is ‘sanctified’ by its altruistic aims.

2. Weiss (2012, humanitarian internvention): ‘If only altruism without significant interests had to be present, there would rarely be sufficient motivation to get involved in the first place or to stay the course.’

HOW TO MAINTAIN THE CREDIBILITY OF R2P UNDER THESE CONDITIONS?

1. There is no way to know "how many lives would have been saved" (counterfactuals)
2. Humanitarian interventions always bring secondary harms.
3. Once the "protection force" leaves the protected zone, the population becomes again target. On the other hand, a long term occupation can be seen as imperialistic.
4. The intervention forces may be inconsistent with R2P for numerous reasons 1) the probability to succeed is slow 2) takes too long to react 3) intervention would do more harm than good.

SOLUTIONS
1. Brazil's proposal: Careful use of force
2. Robert Pape intervene when  (1) an ‘ongoing campaign of mass homicide’; (2) a ‘viable plan for intervention’, including an expectation of ‘near zero’ casualties among the interveners; and (3) a ‘workable strategy for creating lasting security, so that saving lives in the short term does not lead to open-ended chaos  (p. 590)

R2P spectrum of action must include military force as the option of last resort (conceptually, not sequentially).  Thakur (2015)
PURITAN VIEW IN RESPONSE TO PARIS

Weiss (2012) R2P MUST contain a military option that deters and strengthen the operation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Moral Hazard of humanitarian intervention (Kuperman 2008)

# data[].attributes.subject
Moral Hazard of humanitarian intervention (Kuperman 2008)

# data[].attributes.body
In Bosnia and Kosovo, ethnic minorities secede (rebeled) against government with the hope that the genocidal response provoked intervention.
This leaves a lot of deaths and not necessarily the achievements expected.
To deter groups to do that, the UN could (see pic)

# data[].attributes.body
Wesphalian sovereignty versus the other sovereignties...
The difference between a participle and past tense in literature... is the notion changing? transforming? is it emerging? or has it emerged?

What is sovereignty right now? It is changing but almost noone would dispute that Wesphalian sovereign states are the principal states.

# data[].attributes.body
What launched the commission was the results of Kosovo and Annan address to the GA in which the GA was divided...

KOSOVO it was illegal but it was legitimate.... what would have happened if they had intervened in Rwanda???? This triggered the commission.

More focused on normative concerns and global protection.

RESPONSIBILITY TO:
PREVENTION, REACTION, REBUILDING...
There is a certain amount of packaging that it's actually embedded here. It was easier to sell this way.

Another packaging:
Ban Ki Moon three pillars of R2P:

1. Governments should prevent genocide. (domestic)

2. International assistance to protect HR.

3. Coercive measures by outsiders.

OBLIGATION VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY:
The commission tried to state the the state is responsible, if the state is unable, then it moves to the state.
The only obligation used is in the Genocide convention. WHEN TO USE THE TERM...
During Darfur the Secretary of State said it was Genocide... everybody voted but nothing happened.

Questions:
1. What are the fundamental differences between the two terms of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect?

- Humanitarian intervention: use of force, R2P: last resort
- R2P not so constrained to security council.
- Humanitarian intervention... R2P, intervention is not the focus, it is the victims.

2. Which is more powerful? State jurisdiction over its individuals, or international jurisdiction over human rights?

Big debate. R2P puts both in equal terms. Their rights are primary.  Sovereignty is a legal fiction that continues to evolve.
R2P encourage security council not to veto decisions.

3. Should the emphasis be on “responsibility?” Or “protection?”

- Responsibility puts the focus on states.
- Protection refers to the victims.

4. For R2P to succeed, do we need substantive reform within the United Nations? If so, can we possibly get it?

- UN is contradictory (Article 2 mentions sovereignty but can be overruled) But puts military as a last resort.

5. Can R2P help us take a step toward a world free of mass atrocities?

World Summit
What the commission proposed in 2001 and the UN agreed on R2P?
2001 Put responsibility on the security council, and the GA agreed on something different in 2005.
Other differences:

Language of the commission: Mass murder, mass ethnic cleansing, actual or anticipated.
2005: Genocide, Crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing.

It is not ordinary supression that triggers R2P...
This is not happening everyday, and if so, we hardly do something.

# data[].attributes.body
Chernobyl
Exxon Valdez

These crisis also trigger an international responsibility to do something. After some conversation shifted back to mass killing.

# data[].attributes.body
Is humanitarian intervention "neoimperialism"?

In Libya, the US didn't get any oil...
Regime change was beyond the terms presented by the security council, it has been justified under protecting human beens but the real objective was to get rid of Qaddafi.

WHAT IS THE CRITERIA TO TRIGGER ACTION?
It is VEEERY complicated. Using precise numbers might not get you very far.
Same happens with consistency, why Libya and not Syria?
No case is comparable to another.

In Somalia the US had a lot of interests.
If Somalia had been of any interest to the US, there would have been any other reaction rather than leave.

# data[].attributes.headline
Moral hazards in humanitarian intervention

# data[].attributes.subject
Moral hazards in humanitarian intervention

# data[].attributes.body
Ideas do matter

The nature of business has changed dramatically in time.

UN assistance for the pandemic increased to 6.5 billion, and now it's 10 billion. It is not clear how much of this will materialize. What is certain that big part of the money would go to the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.body
Peacekeeping: Morocco is back to work, only 40 peacekeepers.

Cyprus: "nuclear war interrupted Cyprus peace-talks" this is a way of saying, peacekeeping don't have a certain period of more activity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Report from the Dag Hammarskjöld foundation

# data[].attributes.subject
Report from the Dag Hammarskjöld foundation

# data[].attributes.body
The publication of this reports is like the report of the report on humanitarian assistance. This not central to the UN reports.
The assessed and core contributions... the developing countries contribute to these just to say they contribute but in reality is for local countries.

In 2018 Humanitarian became more important than development (for the first time)... but earlier the development section it used to be about 70%...

Development is what was driving the spending of the operations. Humanitarian is been increasing...

https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/18-00159e_un_system_chart_17x11_4c_en_web.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of Cold War as decolonized countries felt utilized by the U.S and USSR created the non aligned movement (NAM). Leaders such as Ho Chi Min and  Nasser inaugurated this movement.

North-South geographically make no sense. It is more a label.  And Global South has developed too (BRICS). The categorization is more a political divide .  It is more about not ceding to the counterpart.

Professor Weiss:
Difference of NAM and G77... they are different...
The NAM alignment was triggered from the struggle between East and West.
The first meeting was in Bandung (Indonesia) to talk everything from race to decolonization. It was before the massive decolonization. The G77 (another part of the global south) grew out of the economic debates.
That revolves around the first 1963 conference of the UNCTAD. It was purely economic with theories such as the dependencia theory... the G77 arouse from GATT which was dominated by West... and then the discussion was about the poor countries producing raw materials and buying transformed products...

The establishment of the UNCTAD as part of a "third world" secretariat agency was a development.
Is there another way to organize?
There are only two ways...One is regions... or by this North South divisions.

When this conversations began, there was a huge imbalance in the agendas that were being discussed. The numbers began to change in the 1950s and 1960s, there were 150 countries instead of 50.
The agenda of what we call development, developing, first, second third world was important to alter the agenda. In the 1960s the agenda was altered substantially because of this array of country.
This grouping which makes sense (as developing-developed) still made more sense in the 1960s to say that those countries were on the same boat... raw material producers...
So this grouping together altered the structure of this conversation. it was very useful maybe up to the 1980s but after that the alignment made not much sense.
The range of countries in the global south is vast.
When those barriers break down, there's room for maneuver. Treating all of the global South as one unit makes no much sense... China has different interests that small island in the Caribbean.

Trying to keep this together was a recipe to keep the predictable outcome that made sense for the prone to disaster countries.

# data[].attributes.body
The progression of the UN is interesting to track.
Development is in there, but it is clearly not in the center.
Human rights and development were seen as contributing to the conditions for peace, but in particular development in the late 1940s became an emphasis. Then development became key...
But looking to the debate over decades there were the conferences on 1972... the south was much more a cohesive group (with solidarity) but already in that time... debate was "industrial countries made this for years, why are we being stop"
Indira Ghandi, poverty is the most pollutment....
Before the 1972 and the millenium development goals and the sustainable development goal... setting goals has been one of the major techniques to try to move countries within the UN.  It is one of the essential things... there is a relation between aspirations and what you end up doing..
The debate until Paris was purely a North South conversation... in addition to the fact that there were more developed countries in the South now there is the distinction also between the countries that in spite being in the South, the BRICS for example has to be held accountable on the environmental conversation and the juxtaposition of how important is the enviroment and the notion of sustainable development,  how do we square the circle...
How to grow and not threaten the possibilities for future generations... THE IDEA COMES FROM 1987.
The launching poing was in Stockolm Rio+10 Rio+20... the notion of sustainability went from not being in the agenda to

1. Should developing countries prioritize economic growth, even when this comes in conflict with the environment? 2. Given climate scientists’ grim outlook on the impending collapse of our ecosystems, are the SDGs realistic goals to ensure the continued survival of our species? 3. Some scholars, namely those drawing on the work of economist Simon Kuznets, see the solution to environmental problems as increased economic growth. The Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesizes that “various indicators of environmental degradation tend to get worse as modern economic growth occurs until average income reaches a certain point over the course of development [shamelessly copied from Wikipedia]”. Considering the levels of resource usage in the developed world, is it possible to sustain both development and the environment?

# data[].attributes.body
The third UN...
The UN has a forum where conversations on development and abuses take place... (formula Nestle and Bananas)
The World Health Assembly called the attention of these behaviors, and this has effects on funding and the NGO carrying out projects.

Organizations, individuals and networks get mixed together. But some of the individuals who are part of networks they can be epistemic communities for change

How much legislation comes from activism? how much of it?

# data[].attributes.body
DSG position was created to lead the development arm but it became just the replacement of the SG.

One of the notions of the current SG, was to make his DSG (she) to talk about the Sustainable Development Goals.

She is responsible for the Development side of the UN. One of the important bureaucratic changes that would work out beneficially is in countries with operations. The head of the UN development program used to be part of the "UN system" as well and that didn't work very well...
When we look at the system the notion of the UNDP as the central coordinating mechanism over time became just another part of the UN development system in which it became another contractor (where the money was)

The current reform has made the DSG the head. The problem is that they don't control any money. But on paper in some instances (there are countries lists) there are list of priorities.
Side by side there was a little move by donors that the would agree that they would commit 1% of their contributions to pay for cooperation/collaboration efforts.

Are we asking the right question?
The operational agencies that get involved in policy work. Richard Jolly says that the reason that UNICEF has good policy ideas, is because they revised policies and there was an intimate relation between the ideational side of the UNICEF and policy activity... THERE WAS INTERACTION.

# data[].attributes.body
Setting targets is an underestimated strategy.
Donors use targets, recipients use target to get what they want, academic use targets...
Goals are to fuzzy there are too many of them but it is really important.

Couple of years ago, the UN and development (meeting)
1. Reform as a way of life: In 1969 there was a report, the UNDP was only 3 years old,  The BIBLE of UN REFORM...  Decentralization is part of the system, donors don't do much about it, fragmentation is a way of life, it's not going to change, CAN YOU GET MORE IF YOU RECONFIGURE IT?
2. The system has changed, has evolved, the problem is that it has almost always added instead of eliminating. There are all kinds of overlapping responsibilities... within the UN Secretariat there are 4 groups working in development... it's bureaucracy it is what it is

3. The notion of development has evolved immensely. What is more complicated is that the UN activities are more and more often in countries "in transition" "postconflict" so thinking about development is not only about development but more a holistic view of it.
According to scholars the decolonization was going to occur in 100 years but it happened in just 20 years.

4. North South/East West, who is where... it is the way business still occur at all levels, maybe someday we will over it, but not soon.

5. The importance of other actors (ideal front or the operational front) you can't talk about the UN without talking about all the moving parts.

6. There are variables of leaderships, but does it make a difference? The selection process across all agencies is viewed more about representativeness, former careers, connections...
There was a bit of a more just.. selection for current SG and UNESCO ILO and so on...

# data[].attributes.body
Weiss, the UN:
Arab countries have denounced Israel in front of the HRC.

“ The United States chastises others for politicizing the Human Rights Council at the same it resists UN rapporteurs and agencies trying to implement UN standards on torture and the treatment of prisoners, on terrorists, or on the death penalty.”

The Global South used Human Rights to pressure Israel and South Africa; With Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Idi Amin in Uganda, African Union defending Omar Al Bashid (Sudan)

Excerpt From: Thomas G Weiss. “The United Nations and Changing World Politics.” p. 571.

"Humanitarian" interventions during the Cold War

Congo, Grenada, Panama. Were mostly justified on "humanitarian" however, they were characterized by a projection of power. The cases from this period demonstrate that powerful states have a long history of fabricating and employing tendentious legal arguments to rationalize intervention in weaker states. (Weiss & Hubert, the responsibility to protect, 2002)

After Cold War
Kurds in Iraq: Protected after the "CNN effect" and that Turkey acted to prevent massive immigration that would destabilise the country.
Srebrenica: Reluctancy to use air power lead to the massacre. However, UN forces were able to protect the population.
In Somalia, the casualties caused by rebels in the Olympia Hotel Battle prevented Western powers to risk their personnel for humanitarian operations. Somalia remained as a "failed state"
In Rwanda and Kosovo the inaction of the UN led to further killings of Tutsis.. so when a massive killing can be called a genocide?

Article 2 Genocide convention, ... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

# data[].attributes.body
Kofi Annan: The Role of UN in the 21st Century: Globalization brings more economic growth, higher living standards, more technology.
The MDGs (Millenium Development Goals). + 18 targets.

Recession in 2008 affected the states capacity to contribute to the MDGs.

Poverty: China and India did well
Hunger: Some advances in East Sahara and Southeast Asia, yet much to do left.
Education:
Women: Globalization has brought advances and there are more women in leading positions. Quotas have also helped.
Health: Directly correlated to malnutrition. There are significant gaps in the death hazards in developed and developing countries. AIDS and trasmisible diseases also get worsened with extreme poverty.
Environment: Kyoto protocol. Clinton accepted it, didn't pass it to the senate, in 2001 Bush rejected it.
Obama's participation in environmental gatherings were dissapointing (Rio 2012, Cancún Durbán)

In 2010 the MDG target of providing fresh water to half the population was accomplished.

Countries may vote for the MDGs in New York but avoid compliance in their homecountries: Europe protecting their farmers, Syria, Zimbabwe.

Reports from Jeffrey Sachs: "The glass is not even half full"

END OF MDG. Results
https://www.wvi.org/united-nations-and-global-engagement/article/were-mdgs-success

Convergence
Environment+Development = sustainable development

Human development + human security = sustainable human development

MDG ended in 2016 and gave place to SDG.

# data[].attributes.body
1970s, ILOs call for human basic needs.
1980s Thatcherism and Reaganism orthodoxies.
1990s return to humans, first  Human Development Report (by Amartya Sen), comments on Neoliberal policies.
Human Development Reports expanded and started being produced by countries.

What is Human Development: To live a long and healthy life, have education, have access to services, a decent standard of living, guaranteed human rights, self-respect.
Choices + Capabilities + Function: The most you can do with your limited life.
Holistic view: Human rights + social economic advance + self-determination + peace and human security + participation and enpowerment.

DEBATE:

Why the first and second UN aren't more involved in working for increasing Human Development?

# data[].attributes.body
In 1972, the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment marked the first great international meeting on how human activities were harming the environment and putting humans at risk.

The 1980 World Conservation Strategy, prepared by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) along with the UN Environment Program and the World Wildlife Fund, promoted the idea of environmental protection in the self-interest of the human species.

In 1987, the UN-sponsored Brundtland Commission released “Our Common Future”, a report that captured widespread concerns about the environment and poverty in many parts of the world. This report contained the most frequently quoted definition of sustainable development:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. (pg 43)

In 1992, world attention on sustainability peaked at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in Rio de Janeiro.

In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan and came into force on 2005. This international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
Are the Sustainable Development Goals legally binding?

No. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are not legally binding.

DIFFERENCES WITH MDG

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 targets are broader in scope and go further than the MDGs by addressing the root causes of poverty and the universal need for development that works for all people. The goals cover the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection.

Over more ground, with ambitions to address inequalities, economic growth, decent jobs, cities and human settlements, industrialization, oceans, ecosystems, energy, climate change, sustainable consumption and production, peace and justice.

The new Goals are universal and apply to all countries, whereas the MDGs were intended for action in developing countries only

A core feature of the SDGs is their strong focus on means of implementation—the mobilization of financial resources—capacity-building and technology, as well as data and institutions.

# data[].attributes.body
The reform is mandated by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution A/RES/72/279 of 31 May 2018, which responded to the vision and proposals of Secretary-General António Guterres to reposition the United Nations development system to deliver on the 2030 Agenda.

The 2030 Agenda (promulgated in 2015) commands a new spirit of working together in order to deal with the challenges of
implementing the complex set of 17 SDGs.

In May 2018, UN member states set the course for
reforming the UNDS by agreeing on a draft resolution. The
resolution contains five potentially transformative decisions
that will bring the UNDS a step closer to being “fit for
purpose”

the resolution falls short of the reform proposals suggested by the Secretary-General and others.

Key novelties of the 2030 Agenda, such as universality and
policy integration, have not been translated into
meaningful organisational adjustments.

2019 Further SG proposals due for
– reform of regional structures
– multi-country offices
– system-wide strategic document.
2020 Quadrennial comprehensive policy review will
evaluate and advance reform efforts.

The countries in 2018 agreed to:
- Mandate the Secretary-General to present a “system-wide strategic document” to the ECOSOC. It will be an essential management tool for UN leadership
-RCs (leaders in each country) will be able to act more neutrally and become more credible coordinators by being separated from UNDS and now working under the Secretariat.
-Increasing in coordination budget
-only 26 out of the 131 UN country teams have a business operations strategy). The resolution
emphasises the need to advance common business
practices.
- Consolidating UN country presence This counters, and hopefully reverses, a decades-long
trend of an uncoordinated spread of UN country offices.
Fewer offices in the country could save $120 million

https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/BP_13.2018.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
The naming of Guterres of the DSG as the head of the development arm, means that the coordination can be improved.

There are about 18 offices in average per country of UN business.

(The Jackson report 1965) the DSG back then is that there should be one part of the development system that pulls everything together.
The idea was that donors would channel the aid through the UNDP. The UNDP would establish and set priorities (Indicative Planning Figure) each office had a chunk of money and that money was to be discussed with the government on how to invest it.

There were couple of problems
Agencies didn't like somebody else determining how to spend.

Over time each major agency reached donors on their own and the UNDP got into the execution business because UNDP gives $100 to FAO to run a training program for irrigation... $14 dolars of that would go to FAO central office and $66 to irrigation projects.

The real problem is that the head of the UN in each country was the UNDP head... a UNDP official. There was a conflict of interest in communication between administrtion and execution.

This change from Guterres is remarkable because the UN resident coordinator (reporting to UNDP) controls NO resources. There has not been additional moneys into the UN budget to pay for the UN resident coordinator.

What has been worked out is a sort of a taxation system. (a portion of non-core contribution) goes to pay for the UN resident coordinator. This is an attempt to resolve some of the chaos that used to be the development arm.

# data[].attributes.body
Every country is responsible but there are differenciated responsibilities. So in all the conversations about next steps and one of the largest of this core, particularly in the US, is that this principle has some sense... but by the time you get to Rio+20, the US is still the most responsible for CO2 emissions.
This whole conversation was built in 1972 and had more traction back then than today...
We should keep this in mind when discussing MDG and SDG...

There is a debate of fighting poverty while not totally destroying the environment.
Before Stockholm 20 experts met in Geneva and all of the deliberation resulted in the Brutland report which is still current.

# data[].attributes.body
MDG 2000s (8 goals and 17 targets) a new millenium

What they do to come up with these was to look at the conferences during the 1990s (women, rio, kyoto) and try to get the indicators (where supposedly all members agreed)
There weren't much, there were easy to measure.
(empty or full glass?)
The problem was that they were rather global goals. If you throw away into China and India both developed very rapidly the rest of members also did really good.
The only goal of the MDG that maybe failed was the 8th one.

SDG formulated around 2013 after Rio 2012.  (17 goals and 229 indicators)

More "universal" ... more people were invited so they have more indicators.

MDG APPLIED MORE TO GLOBAL SOUTH, SDG TO EVERYONE.

Problems:
1. Coordination of so many indicators.
2. Sequencing (what comes first)
3. If you have that many indicators and you were responsible to write a report, what would you do?

# data[].attributes.body
It emerged from UNDP...
The invitation of Amartya Sen... how to measure human development?

After 30 years, each report added one big indicator.

What matters in naming and shaming?
The list of countries have changed somehow.

Regional report on the Arab Region... Government went furious, in spite that the UNDP hired the report from a consultancy firm.

SECURITY
What it is exactly?
Environmental development?
1997 Richard Allman article.

# data[].attributes.body
Most people attack the utility of goals by saying "how do we know if they worth anything"

One of the critiques of them is that there are going nowhere. These goals seem aspirational.

# data[].attributes.body
Comprising NGOs, academics, consultants, experts, independent commissions and other groups of individuals who routinely engage with the First UN and the Second UN and thereby influence UN thinking, policies, priorities and actions.

(Jolly Weiss UN Ideas p.33)

The third UN has helped to shape ideas. Some reports include:

Partners in development

North-South: A programme for survival.

The so-called Bruntland report

Our Global Neighborhood.

The Responsibility to protect

# data[].attributes.body
Kofi Annan global compact. Institutions must adhere to the Global Compact.
Report their goals and actions online.
Some companies have adhere to minimize critiques of their performance.That is the case of Nestle with the milk substitute.

# data[].attributes.body
The exam will be sent around 11am.

# data[].attributes.body
Global governance doesn't necessarily means that there is an international organization.
The term grew up in the early 1990s, the idea is more of governance without government.

- Airplanes take off, land, trains get to other places.

What's happening there?

There are formal and informal... there is actually more order informally that in some places that have governments (Zimbabwe, Congo)
It is a post-cold war notion.

Rossenau tried to explain this... there are formal and informal rules and institutions. In a decent functioning country you have governments, but how about the intl environment?

People use global governance as a synonym for global governance. But it's not. What it really is, is a group of principles and norms that work together.

It has become so popular that global governance has replaced in importance important topics like security, peace etc...

(people tend to associate it to post cold war, but it may come before that... the age of empire had the same components... global doesn't have to coincide with the whole planet)

The UN has helped to join the pieces of the puzzle, to fill some gaps.

# data[].attributes.body
Non binding UN pact with companies that intend to encourage environmental and social policies.

The implementation policies are not implemented by governments.

It was first announced by Kofi Annan in 1999 and officially launched in 2000

What does it mean NON BINDING?
It is not a watchdog but more a guidedog. In this effect, the encouragement of the global compact has three commitments

1. Add the global compact in annual reports.
2. Post on the global compact website work on any of the 10 principles.
3. Join with the UN in partnership programs to work on developing countries.

13.000 companies now make part of the Global Compact

Principles:
1. Business respect and proclaim HR.
2. Non complicit in HR abuses
3. Freedom of association
4. Elimination of all forms of compulsory labor
5. Child labor
6. Discrimination labor
7. Precautionary approach Environment.
8. Greater environmental
9. New technologies
10. Against corruption

CSR (corporate social responsibility)
and FDR (financial distress risk)
Condition in which a company or an individual cannot generate enough revenue to continue.

Criticisms:
1. It's not regulatory, a form for discussion and communication.
2. There is no effective

Questions:
How do the Global Compact’s attributes as a “guide dog” rather than a “watchdog,” as described by its Director Lise Kingo, make it successful or unsuccessful? Does corporate social responsibility (CSR) reduce financial distress risk (FDR)? Can business be a global force for good?

Weiss comments:
John Ruggie was the brain behind the Global Compact.

Corporations were brought into the table, that was important, but NGOs also are observing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Partnership between UN and task sharing with other entities

# data[].attributes.subject
Partnership between UN and task sharing with other entities

# data[].attributes.body
Accountability is a problem.
The UN has seeking the assistance of other actors because the lack of resources, inability of the UN to respond, and so on.
For example in the Balkans the relation between the UN and the NATO,.
It was mainly focused in the security arena.