James5

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

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.

While in Geneva, we had the pleasure of visiting the Advisory Centre for WTO Law and having a presentation on the work that they do. The ACWL is a kind of ‘legal aid’ for developing countries needing assistance with WTO law. Their membership includes 25% of WTO members, and is mostly developing countries. They have an important role to play in levelling out the power imbalances inherent in the WTO system, as well as providing more general training on WTO law. So far they have been used in about 20% of disputes.

Importantly the Centre only provides legal advice, so is unable to assist with general policy advice or advice on negotiating positions at the WTO. Their limited mandate ensures they can do excellent work with a very small staff, I was amazed at how much work they do given how small their staff is.

Theoretically the WTO Dispute Settlement System is a very empowering system for poorer or less powerful nations. By giving defined rights to countries, regardless of their size or power, and providing a forum within the rights can be enforced, the WTO lessens the ‘bullying’ that once accompanied trade disputes. Rich nations can’t do what they like without fear of real repercussions.

However, I wonder if the reality of the system is that the WTO dispute settlement is most useful to middle powers, nations that aren’t rich and powerful but aren’t extremely reliant on other powers. While it isn’t necessarily helpful for major powers, depending on what deal was struck during negotiations, because of their prior ability to get their way anyway. And recourse to legal dispute resolution may be out of reach for many poor nations due to cost in many instances. For middle powers, though, the Dispute Settlement System is an empowering way to resolve disputes with major powers and other nations, one that they can afford to use.

I haven’t read any statistics or analysis on this, so I’d be interested to hear what anyone else thinks. Of course thanks to the work of the ACWL and other institutions dispute settlement means more for poorer nations as they are able to realise their rights against powerful nations.

Popularity: 9% [?]

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: 6% [?]

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.

UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organisation. It was instituted to:

contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter.

So they do a range of difference things from promoting literacy, to registering cultural heritage sites, to improving the freedom of the press.

UNESCO is one of the older international institutions, established in 1946 and carrying on from the work of League of Nations’ International Commission on Intellectual Cooperation.

What I found most interesting about the presentation we heard on UNESCO was the increasing work they do in fields such as development. Encouraging increased literacy is a good example of this. While UNESCO was designed with a wide, almost vague, mission - it seems that their modern work covers an extremely wide range of fields. Human rights, development, cultural heritage. Not only does this mean UNESCO has a lot to do, within a constrained budget, but it also means there’s overlap with the work of agenices such as the UNDP, UNICEFs, and NGOs and government.

Sure a ‘holistic’ view of their work is important when you consider what UNESCO does, but I worry that this expanding ‘mission creep’ is not in the best interest of UNESCO, the people being helped or other groups doing development. What’s wrong with a bit of specialisation?

Popularity: 5% [?]

Well I’m now back from Geneva, arriving home at 6am last Thursday after more than 24 hours of travel.

I was doing an awesome subject called Institutions in International Law with Dr Andrew Mitchell and Bruce Oswald from Melbourne University, and had an amazing two weeks visiting institutions and people and also having some great times with friends in Geneva (such as busking on lake Geneva).

The first week we focused on trade, with a bit of development, IP and health mixed in. We visited the WTO, UN, WHO, ACWL, WIPO, UNCTAD and, one of my favourites, the Australian Mission in Geneva. It was fascinating hearing from people who actually work for these institutions about the work they do and how they got to where they are now. Visiting the United Nations building was particularly inspiring, as we walked through rooms and halls where history was made - for example the room where the League of Nations ended and bumping into a diplomat who had worked at the UN for the past 30 years.

The WTO was also a real blast. We heard from an intern working in the Appellate Body and saw the room where the AB Members actually made actual decisions, had a tour of some of the highlights of the building and heard from the Barbados ambassador on what it’s like negotiating for your country at the WTO. Really fascinating insight into a world that is often behind closed doors.

In week two Oz took over and we headed out to the ‘peace & security’ (with some development and environment mixed in) institutions. We visited and heard from the ICRC, UNEP, UNHCR, OHCR, IOM, ILC (we got to see an actual session!) and my absolute favourite for the trip the Humanitarian Dialogue Centre. The presenters gave us a candid insight into their jobs and lives and what it was really like to work in some extremely intense situations. We heard about the challenges facing the institutions and their staff as they dealt with issues of ‘legitimacy, accountability and governance’ and of course the ‘fragmentation of international law’ (the course buzzwords).

The Humanitarian Dialogue Centre was an especially eye-opening experience for me. They are a small organisation on the banks of lake Geneva that do mediation and negotiation work during conflicts. They are often the first in to help set up discussions between warring parties. The also do work on humanitarian mediation to try and get assistance to those that need it. It’s an amazing institution that I’d love to work one day.

So now I’ve got an essay to write - currently percolating through ideas about the UN Security Council as a peace and security dispute settlement mechanism (trying to think about the differences between trade and peace & security and what could be transferred between the two areas), but we’ll see what happens. I’m also preparing applications for the ICTR and SCSL - so if anyone has any contacts that can help me get a placement for next year let me know!

James5 will be back in action from now - some older links will probably pop up as I go through what I’ve missed, and I’ll also hopefully be writing about some things learnt in Geneva, not to mention the usual topics. If there’s any topic in particular that you’d like me to write about let me know!

Popularity: 8% [?]