Summer 2010 ACUNS newsletter by Wilfrid Laurier University

ACUNS

THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL ON THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM

Infor mational Memor andum

No. 83 • Summer 2010

summits in Canada in June 2010: the Muskoka G8 meets the Toronto G20 Background

peter hajnal

Both the G8 and G20 were born of crises. The Group of

Eight industrialized democracies emerged in response to the twin exchange rate and oil crises in the early 1970s. The leaders met for their first summit in 1975 as G6 with France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US as members; Canada’s membership turned the group into the G7 the following year and it became the G8 with Russia in 1998. The European Union has been a participant since 1977. The agenda of the G8 has grown incrementally, beginning with a rather narrow economic and financial focus. It gradually added terrorism, the environment, energy, health, and many other global issues. In addition to the leaders’ meetings, a broader G8 system has evolved, including ministerial gatherings (finance, foreign affairs, development, health, labour, environment and others) and expert groups and task forces. The Group of Twenty (G20) began at the level of finance ministers and central bank governors in 1999 in response to the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis. By then it had become clear that the G8 countries could not tackle economic and financial problems without the full participation of systemically important emerging economies. This was seen as striking a balance

of representativeness and efficiency. Members of the G20 are the G8 countries plus Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey, with the European Union as the 20th member. When the new financial crisis erupted in 2007 and intensified and became global in 2008, George W. Bush, in one of his final acts as US president, convened the first G20 meeting at the leaders’ level, the “Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy” in Washington, DC, on November 14-15, 2008. The second G20 summit took place in London on April 1-2, 2009, and the third in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on September 24-25, 2009. At the Pittsburgh summit, the heads proclaimed the G20 the premier co-ordinating body for economic and financial questions, thus taking over a crucial part of the G8’s portfolio. The relationship between the G8 and the G20 remains in flux but the two continue to coexist, at least for now. For the first time in the history of these top-level meetings, the two summits convened back-to-back in June 2010: the G8 in Muskoka, north of Toronto, on 25-26 June, and the G20 in Toronto on 26-27 June. c o n t i n u e d o n pa g e 2 > 1

summits in Canada in June 2010:

the G8 at Muskoka continued from cover >

The G8 expects that the total support pledged at Muskoka will prevent 1.3 million deaths of under-five children; 64,000 maternal deaths

The G8 at Muskoka

in developing countries; and provide access to better family planning.

The Muskoka G8 summit met under the 2010 Canadian G8

presidency in the Deerhurst resort near Huntsville. Its agenda ranged from development and Africa to environmental sustainability and “green recovery,” trade and investment, and international peace and security. The two key areas of focus were maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s signature issue – and accountability. On MNCH, the summit launched its G8 Muskoka Initiative: Maternal, Newborn and Under-Five Child Health1. This initiative is closely related to UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 4 and 5, and partly to MDGs 1 and 6. It addresses MNCH from prenatal care to health education, sexual and reproductive health, prevention and treatment of diseases, and strengthening health systems in developing countries. The global targets of the G8, in partnership with the World Bank; the WHO; UNICEF; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; the GAVI Alliance and other organizations and programmes, are the targets of MDGs 4 and 5. The Muskoka Initiative was an important first step in mustering political will and clear purpose, but initial funding commitments to MNCH were disappointing: a total of $5 billion in new money was pledged at the summit for the next five years. Of this, Canada committed $1.1 billion (a sobering thought: this is close to the $1.2 billion for staging these two summits, including security costs). The other seven G8 countries together made up the difference. Non-G8 countries The Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Spain, Switzerland, plus the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pledged an additional 2.3 billion of new money. The G8 expects that the total support pledged at Muskoka will prevent 1.3 million deaths of under-five children; 64,000 maternal deaths in developing countries; and provide access to better family planning. How many more lives could be saved and improved had the leaders found the will to come up with a greater fraction of the hundreds of billions (more likely a combined couple of trillions) of stimulus money that the G8 countries succeeded in mobilizing within months to prop up banks and other financial institutions that first caused, then were hurt by, the present economic crisis? The other key theme of the Muskoka summit was accountability. In fact, the meeting had been dubbed in advance the “accountability summit” by the Canadian host government. There had been previous accountability exercises by the G8 but those tended to be sectoral assessments, tracking the fulfilment of commitments on food security, water, health and education. At their L’Aquila summit in 2009, the G8 leaders established the G8 Accountability Senior Level Working Group, tasking it with identifying key development-related G8 commitments since the 2005 Gleneagles summit and that year’s UN MDG review conference; identifying indicators for assessing those commitments; developing a reporting methodology; exploring ways of measuring the

impact of G8 commitments beyond merely assessing progress; consulting with the OECD and other organizations with expertise in data manipulation and reporting; reporting back to G8 leaders in time for the Muskoka summit; and making recommendations on regularizing accountability practices after Muskoka. How well did the 88-page Muskoka Accountability Report 2 fulfil this ambitious mandate? The working group identified and analyzed 56 development-related commitments, most of which made at the Gleneagles summit and some as far back as Kananaskis in 2002, others made at summits subsequent to Gleneagles. The 56 commitments are grouped in nine thematic areas: aid, aid effectiveness and debt relief; economic development; health; water and sanitation; food security; education; governance; peace and security; and environment and energy. The main sources of the report are “data and narrative evidence” from G8 governments themselves and from what the report calls “relevant” international organizations, mostly OECD/DAC. For example, on aid, the report notes that G8 spending on ODA to Africa has increased by about 50%, reaching almost $30 billion in 2008, representing 70% of global (G8 and non-G8) ODA. This still leaves an acknowledged shortfall of $18 billion from all donors; individual G8 country records are mixed. In its conclusions, the report draws a positive overall balance in the G8’s progress on meeting its commitments but notes that in some areas “it has further to go to fully deliver on its promises.” The recommendations emphasize the importance of improving transparency in reporting by using a comprehensive and consistent methodology, but the working group, in the body of the report, shows the difficulty of advancing this objective. Laudably, the working group underlines that G8 commitments must be assessed in a multi-year context, and the report goes some way toward that. Wisely, it cautions that “aspirational and policy commitments make them difficult to track and report … in any meaningful or quantifiable manner.” All in all, the Accountability Report is an important step in improving G8 accountability (including transparency). But some problems are apparent. First, country-to-country reporting is uneven, seemingly based on differing emphases and data selection; this makes comparability difficult. Second, being a self-assessment of G8 governments, the report necessarily uses diplomatic language, contrasted with, say, the DATA group’s reports which are willing to name and shame G8 countries that have fallen behind 3. Third, there is a problem of time-lag: OECD statistics are at least a year behind so reporting is not quite up-to-date. Fourth, the Accountability Report does not adjust for level of ambition of commitments – a difficult challenge but one that should not be beyond the G8’s capacity. Sadly, the leaders, despite referring numerous times to

summits in Canada in June 2010:

the G20 in Toronto The G20 Declaration asserts the leaders’ commitment to taking concerted actions but adds that “these will be differentiated

accountability, signalled their intention to devote future accountability reports to specific sectors rather than treating accountability comprehensively; the 2011 accountability report will focus on health and food security only. On other issues, Muskoka’s results were weak. Economic co-ordination has now been largely taken over by the G20; environment and climate were commented on but both the G8 and the G20 acknowledge that meaningful negotiations and agreements have to be conducted under the aegis of the UN. On trade, Muskoka produced a recurrent and now formulaic G8 support for completing the Doha round and for fighting protectionism. Development is coming on the agenda of the next G20 summit in Seoul in November of this year, and will arguably be taken on by the G20 in the future. Security issues (terrorism, non-proliferation, regional problems such as Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan/Pakistan) remain in the ambit of the G8 for now; in addition to the Declaration, the leaders issued a statement on countering terrorism and a report on the G8 global partnership against weapons of mass destruction.4 An increasingly clear aspect of these G8 summits is that this is no longer purely the G8. In addition to the G8 and EU leaders, Muskoka saw two “outreach” sessions on 25 June: one with African leaders from Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia (as chair of NEPAD), Malawi (as chair of the African Union), Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa. The other session brought the G8 leaders together with leaders from Colombia, Haiti and Jamaica in addition to the African leaders. With the various joint working sessions with these partners, the G8 leaders had much less time to meet alone in the available one and a half days.

G8 (2010). “G8 Muskoka Declaration: Recovery and New Beginnings” <http://g8.gc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/declaration_eng.pdf>, Annex I.

G8 (2010). “Muskoka Accountability Report”. <http://g8.gc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/muskoka_accountability_report.pdf>

Their latest annual report is “The DATA Report 2010: Monitoring the G8 Promise to Africa”. <www.one.org/report/2010/en>

G8 (2010). “G-8 Leaders Statement on Countering Terrorism”. <http://g8.gc.ca/9938/g-8-leaders-statement-on-countering-terrorism>; G8 (2010). “Report on the G-8 Global Partnership 2010” <http://g8.gc.ca/g8-summit/summit-documents/report-on-the-g-8global-partnership-2010>

The G20 in toronto

and tailored to national circumstances.”

This G20 summit continued the primarily economic

and financial focus of the previous three G20 meetings. It resulted in a Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth, including reform of the financial sector which rests on four pillars: a strong regulatory framework; effective oversight and supervision of financial institutions; addressing systemic issues including restructuring or otherwise resolving financial institutions in crisis; and implementing a transparent, peer-reviewed international assessment in co-operation with the IMF, World Bank and Financial Stability Board. Apparent harmony among the G20 on some of these issues covers real disagreements. For example, the G20 declaration asserts the leaders’ commitment to taking concerted actions but adds that “these will be differentiated and tailored to national circumstances.”5 The reform of international financial institutions (IFIs) continued as a major G20 preoccupation. The Declaration refers to the fulfilment of commitments at the Pittsburgh summit, for example by providing capital increases to the tune of $350 billion for multilateral development banks. The leaders also welcomed voice reforms (quota increases for underrepresented countries) by the World Bank and urged the IMF to speed up and complete its quota reform by the time of the November 2010 Seoul summit. 5

G20 (2010). “The G-20 Toronto Summit Declaration, June 26 – 27, 2010” <http://g20.gc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ g20_declaration_en.pdf>

c o n t i n u e d o n pa g e 5 > 3

Notes from the Executive Director

STAY I N G

on topic:

the more things change... > new opportunities make way for familiar faces

Patricia Goff, Executive Director, ACUNS

Greetings to all and warm wishes from Waterloo! This is something of a bittersweet message today, since this will be my last as ACUNS Executive Director. After two very exciting years in this chair, I am stepping down for personal reasons. It has truly been a pleasure to meet so many of our members and friends, who are all engaged in such fascinating work. It has also been a pleasure to work closely with ACUNS’ dedicated Board members and Secretariat staff (I mean Brenda, of course!). I have learned so much about the UN and multilateralism and also so much about how to keep an international professional association moving forward! I am grateful to have had the experience. I step down with absolutely no worries about ACUNS because returning to the ED role is my colleague, Alistair Edgar. Many of you know Alistair well and will, no doubt, give him a warm welcome back. I hope to see many of you at future ACUNS events! It was a highlight of my time as ED to meet many of you in Vienna this past June. We had a very successful annual meeting, discussing New Security Challenges. Our liaison officer in Vienna, Dr. Michael Platzer, worked tirelessly to organize that event on the ground and it paid off!

Please visit the ACUNS website to watch videotape of the opening keynote, featuring President Danilo Türk of Slovenia; plenary sessions featuring Mary Robinson, Lakhdar Brahimi, Hans Blix and others; and the John Holmes Memorial Lecture, delivered this year by Dame Margaret Anstee. In my last official act as ACUNS ED, I had the pleasure of attending our 2010 Summer Workshop, hosted by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and co-directed by Dr. Thierry Tardy and Professor Steven Haines. We had a fabulous group of participants. In addition to our discussions of Civil-Military Relations in Peace Missions, Geneva afforded the wonderful opportunity of visiting the ICRC, the UNHCR, and OCHA, among others.

Alistair Edgar, incoming Executive Director, ACUNS

I look forward to keeping in touch with many of you. Thank you for your kindness and support over the last two years! Let’s stay in touch!

WELCOME BACK TO ACUNS! Dr. Alistair Edgar, is returning to ACUNS and is currently an Associate Professor at Wilfrid Laurier University. He has a BA Honours in History from Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge University, an MA in Political Science/International Relations from the University of British Columbia and a PhD in Political Science/International Relations from Queen’s University. He also has a Certificate in Russian Studies, Moscow State (Lomonosov) University, Russia. Dr. Edgar was the John M. Olin Doctoral Fellow in Economics and National Security, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University from 1992-93. His current research work includes the political, legal, economic and social dimensions of post-conflict peace and reconstruction programs; sovereignty and humanitarian intervention as competing norms and practices in global governance; and Canadian and American foreign policy and defence policy.

summits in Canada in June 2010:

the G20 in Toronto Accountability of the G20 is more problematic than in the G8’s case – mostly for political reasons –

The G20 in toronto

continued from cover >

Fighting protectionism and promoting trade and investment were continuing G20 agenda items. There did not seem to be much movement on these, particularly as shown by the ritualistic support for the completion of the Doha Development Round. On the other hand, concern for the impact of the economic and financial crisis on the most vulnerable populations was praiseworthy. To supplement its Declaration, the G20 also issued a short document, Principles for Innovative Financial Inclusion. These principles list leadership, diversity, innovation, protection, empowerment, co-operation and knowledge as means to improve access to financial services for the poor – the two billion people currently excluded from these benefits.6 Clearly, this G20 has achieved more – at least potentially – than the Muskoka G8. It undertook to halve deficits in advanced economies by 2013 and to stabilize or reduce government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016. But here, too, differences among countries surfaced; at his end-of-summit press conference, President Sarkozy of France pointed out that these undertakings were voluntary. This was then acknowledged by the host leader, Canadian Prime Minister Harper, at his own final press conference. On proposals such as a tax or levy on financial transactions, member countries also intend to go their own way. Like the G8, the G20 is not purely the G20, either. The Canadian hosts invited the following leaders to participate in part of the proceedings at the Toronto summit: Ethiopia as NEPAD chair and Malawi as African Union chair who had also participated in some G8 sessions at Muskoka. Also present were two regular interlopers at G20 summits – The Netherlands and Spain – plus Vietnam as chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The heads of the following international organizations, too, were there: Financial Stability Board, International Labour Organization, the IMF, the OECD, the UN, the World Bank and the WTO. Accountability of the G20 is more problematic than in the G8’s case – mostly for political reasons – but there are some encouraging early signs. One way the G20 could move toward this would be by allowing public reporting of the IMF/World Bank mutual assessment reports done for G20 countries beyond the partial release of substantial but peripheral information at the Toronto summit7. 6

G20 (2010). “Principles for Innovative Financial Inclusion” <http://g20.gc.ca/toronto-summit/summit-documents/principlesfor-innovative-financial-inclusion> International Monetary Fund (2010).“G-20 Mutual Assessment Process: Alternative Policy Scenarios; A Report by the IMF Staff” <www.imf.org/external/np/g20/pdf/062710a.pdf> and World Bank (2010). “G20 and Global Development: Report prepared by Staff of the World Bank for G20 Growth Framework and Mutual Assessment Process” <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/ Resources/G20Framework&MAP-WBReport-TorontoSummit-2.pdf>.

but there are some encouraging early signs.

The Street Scene in Toronto Those who watched media coverage of the Muskoka G8 but especially the Toronto G20 may well have concluded – mistakenly – that violent incidents on Toronto streets and some police overzealousness were the most memorable features of this G20. Unfortunately, many media outlets (television, radio, newspapers) once again tended to focus on such incidents and underreported the less showy but more numerous and more important majority of peaceful demonstrators advocating causes of economic and social justice. And the messages of the actual summits were somewhat overshadowed.

> What of the Future? The South Korean hosts of the next G20 summit, to take place

in Seoul on 11-12 November, 2010, have signalled that, in addition to building on the results of the previous four G20 summits, they will put development prominently on their agenda – a significant new file for this more representative forum of major industrialized countries including emerging economies. Then, the G8 presidency rotates to France whose government has announced the intention to hold a G8 summit in Nice in spring 2011 and a G20 summit later in the fall. In 2012 it will be the turn of the US to convene a G8 but the question lingers: will there still be a G8? On the one hand, the eight like-minded leaders like these smaller gatherings where they can discuss whatever issues they wish; on the other, the fading relevance of the G8 is becoming more widely accepted. Mexico will have the G20 chair in 2012, so that year’s summit will meet in that country. Peter Hajnal is a Faculty Member at the University of Toronto.

a nn o u n c emen t

New ACUNS Board Members ACUNS is proud to announce the appointment of

Dr. Roger Coate and Jan Wouters

to the Board of Directors, effective June 2010, for three-year terms.

ACUNS Secretariat Staff Patricia Goff, Executive Director Brenda Burns, Administration, Communications and Program Development

Roger Coate is Paul D. Coverdell Endowed

Chair of Public Policy at Georgia College & State University and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science and former Director of the Richard L. Walker Institute of International Studies at the University of South Carolina. He joined the faculty at GCSU in January 2009 after having taught at USC since 1981 and before that at Arizona State University for four years. He received his Ph.D. from Ohio State University and holds a M.A. from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. Professor Coate’s research and teaching interests focus on public policy related to multilateral relations, international organization and global governance. His specific areas of expertise include: the UN system, international organization reform, international administration and development, the role of civil society in global governance, nonprofit management, publicprivate partnerships, and U.S. multilateral foreign policy. He is author or co-author of more than a dozen books and monographs, including: United Nations Politics: Responding to a Challenging World; The United Nations and Changing World Politics; International Cooperation in Response to AIDS; United States Policy and the Future of the United Nations; and Unilateralism, Ideology and United States Foreign Policy: The U.S. In and Out of UNESCO.

ACUNS Wilfrid Laurier University 75 University Avenue, West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5

Jan Wouters is Professor of International Law

and International Organizations, Jean Monnet Chair Ad Personam EU and Global Governance and Director of the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and Institute for International Law at the University of Leuven (KULeuven). He is Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, President of the Flemish Foreign Affairs Council and Of Counsel at Linklaters. He is Member of the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts. He studied law and philosophy in Antwerp and Yale University (LLM 1990), was a Visiting Researcher at Harvard Law School and obtained his PhD at KULeuven (1996). He taught at the Universities of Antwerp and Maastricht, was Visiting Professor at Liège and Kyushu University and Référendaire at the European Court of Justice (1991-1994). He is Editor of the International Encyclopedia of Intergovernmental Organizations and ViceDirector of Revue belge de droit international. He has published widely (over 360 publications including 30 books and 70 international journal articles). Recently he published a treatise on international law (Grondlijnen van Internationaal Recht, 2005, with M. Bossuyt) and on the World Trade Organization (The World Trade Organization: A Legal and Institutional Analysis, 2007, with B. De Meester) as well as edited volumes such as The European Union and Conflict Prevention (2004), Legal Instruments in the Fight Against International Terrorism (2004), The United Nations and the European Union (2006), Multilevel Regulation and the EU (2008), The Europeanisation of International Law (2008), European Constitutionalism Beyond Lisbon (2009), Belgium in the Security Council (2009) and the European Union and Peacebuilding (2010). Apart from his participation in many national and international research projects and networks, he often trains international and national officials, advises a number of international organizations and frequently comments on international events in the media.

T. (519) 884-0710, ext. 2766 F. (519) 884-5097 E. bburns@wlu.ca

www.acuns.org ACUNS Board Members 2010-2011 Chair

Christer Jönsson, Lund University

Past Chair Thomas G. Weiss, CUNY Graduate Center Members Aldo Caliari, Center of Concern

Roger Coate, Georgia College and State University

Sam Daws, UN Association, UK

Lorraine Elliott, Australian National University

Shin-wha Lee, Korea University

Julie Mertus, American University

Henrike Paepcke, Dusseldorf Institute for Foreign and Security Policy

Ramesh Thakur, University of Waterloo

Jan Wouters, University of Leuven

Friends of ACUNS offers an Annual Book Award. The award goes to the author(s) or editor(s) of the best book that focuses on some aspect of the United Nations and/or the United Nations System.

questions for Lise Morjé Howard author of UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars

ACUNS Executive Director, Patricia Goff sat down with the recipient of the 2010 Friends of ACUNS Book Award for a discussion of UN Peacekeeping.

PG: In your book, you indicate that there is a distinct lack of second-level learning going on between multidimensional peace operations. To me, this is a very surprising finding. I would have thought that there would be intensive study of previous missions and application of lessons to subsequent ones. Yet your study suggests that this is limited. Is this simply due to the sui generis nature of each mission? Is the assumption that lessons from one mission can be applied to another simply incorrect? LMH: As I argue in the book, the UN has been very good at what I call “first-level learning” during the course of many peacekeeping operations. First-level learning means that the members of the UN staff are doing the following: 1. actively engaging with the local population to gather and disseminate information, 2. coordinating efforts with other components of the international intervention, 3. managing inevitable crises large and small, and 4. making important institutional changes based directly on political, social, and economic considerations of the post civil-war environment. First-level learning is enabled by a Security Council that is only moderately interested in the peacekeeping mission (so that SC members are not attempting to direct the mission from afar), as well as the consent of the warring parties for the operation. The UN was able to engage in first-level learning in many of its most complex operations—in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique, Eastern Slavonia (Croatia), East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Burundi—which was the main source of its success at implementing its mandates in these cases. First-level learning entails “learning while doing.” As I define it, second-level learning occurs in between missions, back at UN headquarters. Thus far, in my estimation, the UN has not been all that adept at second-level learning. Instead, we see a lot of what I call “incremental adaptation,” where mandates are transferred from one mission to the next regardless of context; units in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations are divided, increased in number, re-named; but the mechanisms for enabling first-level learning remain stymied, and the overall purpose of UN peacekeeping remains unclear. Is the UN working toward becoming more proficient at multidimensional peacekeeping (after a peace accord, building peace “where there is a peace to keep”)? Or is the UN seeking to become a peace enforcement organization, where peace is created through the use of military force? All major peacekeeping missions in civil wars since 1999 have been authorized under Chapter VII of the UN charter, with a mandate to enforce the peace. The enforcement mandate means that ground operations have dual imperatives—peacekeeping and peace enforcement—which are exceedingly difficult to perform simultaneously. The two central unresolved tensions, between peacekeeping and peace enforcement, and between headquarters and the field, are the two core indicators of an absence of second-level learning.

PG: You note that two major changes have occurred in recent years that affect multidimensional peace operations: a preoccupation with terrorism as a major consideration for Security Council members and a change in the way that peace is brokered in civil wars. Where and how have these changes been most deeply felt? LMH: These are both very big and important questions that relate to several research projects that I’m working on now. First, one of the most direct manifestations of 9-11 on the UN is the US’s changed attitude toward the UN. The US has realized that the UN can be a major asset in helping to re-establish order in places where states are fragile, authority is unclear, and armed conflict reigns—places where international terrorists might gravitate. During the second Bush administration, even though the rhetoric toward the UN was not always diplomatic, the fact of the matter is that the US worked to double the UN’s Administrative Budget to $5.2 billion, and triple the UN peacekeeping budget to $7 billion, tripling also the number of peacekeepers in the field so that we now have the largest number of UN peacekeepers in the history of the UN (over 100,000 uniformed troops). The Obama administration is continuing along this path of an expanded vision of UN peacekeeping, albeit accompanied by more diplomatic rhetoric. In terms of the second question—how peace is brokered in civil wars— never before in the history of civil war have we had so many intrastate conflicts conclude in negotiated settlements. Historically, civil wars end with the complete defeat of the losing side, but since the end of the Cold War, civil wars have been ending in negotiated settlements in large part due to the UN’s promotion of negotiation as the primary method of settling armed disputes. PG: On the one hand, your emphasis on UN successes in multidimensional peace missions suggests a positive assessment of the UN. On the other hand, your discussion of the various internal “dysfunctions” is less complimentary. On balance, what kind of conclusion do you hope that your reader will draw about the UN as an organization? LMH: The UN has been very successful at multidimensional peacekeeping operations, even while there has been considerable dysfunction at UN headquarters. The dysfunction often comes as a result of both great powers and individuals within the Secretariat pursuing narrow interests as opposed to the greater good. My book is a work of social science, and I’m less comfortable in the realm of advocacy. But on balance, I hope my readers will see that the UN is not unidimensional—all positive or negative—but that the UN, especially the members of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, have the potential to help create institutions after civil wars that will decrease the likelihood of further armed conflict. This potential ought to be supported and nurtured. c o n t i n u e d o n pa g e 8 > 7

2010 ACUNS 23 rd Annual Meeting University of Vienna • the Vienna International Centre • Austrian Parliament

What a fabulous time we had at the 2010 ACUNS

k e y n ot e s p e a k e r

Annual Meeting! Over 350 people joined us for the

“New Security Challenges”

festivities in Vienna. The theme was New Security

Danilo Türk

Challenges and we were happy to discuss the

president of the republic of slovenia

various dimensions of this issue during plenary sessions at the Austrian Parliament and in plenary and breakout panel sessions at the United Nations and the University of Vienna.

J o h n W. H o l m e s m e m o r i a l l e c t u r e

“What Price Security” Dame Margaret Anstee former un Under-secretary General

AM10

PLENARY I:

PLENARY II:

PLENARY III:

An Agenda for Human Rights

The UN Under Fire

Chair: Bertrand Ramcharan,

Chair: David Dadge,

Nuclear and Small Arms Proliferation

Former Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations

Director, International Press Institute

Panelists:

Saad Ibrahim, Eminent Persons’ Panel

Lakhdar Brahimi, Former United Nations Special Adviser to the Secretary-General

Panelists:

Jan Egeland, Director, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs

Sarah Masters, Director, International Action Network on Small Arms

Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Rapporteur on Children, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Mary Robinson, Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Edward Mortimer, Senior Vice-President, Salzburg Global Seminar Abiodun Williams, Vice President, Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention, United States Institute of Peace

Chair: Heinz Gärtner,

Professor, Austrian Institute for International Affairs

Hans Blix, Former Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency

Ramesh Thakur, Former Assistant Secretary-General, United Nations Tibor Tóth, Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization

For those who missed the ACUNS Annual Meeting on New Security Challenges, visit www.acuns.org to watch the video.

In analyzing the successful missions, we see that they tended to have considerable autonomy from headquarters. This autonomy enabled the missions to adapt to the local environment and create institutional responses that were very context-specific.

questions for Lise Morjé Howard c o n t i n u e d f r o m pa g e 7 >

PG: How hopeful are you that the UN might make reforms in the directions that you favor? How responsive has the UN been to related assessments, like the Brahimi Report? How responsive can it be? What are the main obstacles to reforms that would reduce organizational dysfunction?

It’s difficult to maintain hierarchical order while simultaneously fostering horizontal exchange, flexibility, and creative solutions to problems.

Value our work? Interested in helping?

Help to secure ACUNS’ future. Support the Friends of ACUNS endowment. Your gift will help to ensure the financial future of ACUNS and the continuation of its programs. Contributions are tax-deductible.

Please send your donation to: FRIENDS OF ACUNS, c/o Jean Krasno, Yale University 31 Hillhouse Avenue New Haven, CT 06511 why not consider donating your book royalties to the Friends of ACUNS?

Friends of ACUNS is incorporated under New York State and federal law as a not-for-profit public charity with 501(c) (3) status.

LMH: Thus far, most reforms have focused on changing institutional structures at UN headquarters, and increasing the size and scope of the structures at the center. However, in analyzing the successful missions, we see that they tended to have considerable autonomy from headquarters. This autonomy enabled the missions to adapt to the local environment and create institutional responses that were very context-specific. As a rough cut, increasing the size of the operations at headquarters would not, in my estimation, help to foster first-level learning, yet this tends to be the first response to calls for reform. PG: When your graduate students come to you with a project that requires careful analysis of between six and ten cases, what do you tell them? LMH: Since I designed this book, the field of qualitative methods has really taken off, which is a great asset to anyone interested in small-n research. There are very few research designs that would require analysis of so many qualitative cases. As you can imagine, I would generally recommend against trying to tackle so many cases. Each case means consulting hundreds of sources, so when we’re talking about 6-10 cases, that means thousands of sources and many, many years of research. Completing such a project requires stamina, as well as dedication to and passion for the subject. PG: This past July, ACUNS held its annual summer workshop in partnership with the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. This year, the theme was Civil-Military Relations in Peace Operations. We asked our participants to reflect on the fact that military and civilian personnel work side by side in peace missions, often with very positive consequences. Nonetheless, these integrated missions can be quite complicated logistically and they can also blur the identities and capacities of these previously distinct actors. What is your perspective on this development? LMH: I presented an early version of this project at the ACUNS summer workshop in 1999, and I got some very important and useful feedback. It was a great intellectual and professional experience for me. In terms of civ-mil relations, my perspective is that in the past, the clearer the division of labor, the easier it has been for individuals working for the UN to understand both their singular purpose, as well as the collective purpose. If identities and capacities begin to shift, it’s important to recognize the changes, clarify what they are, and work toward unity of purpose. It’s difficult to maintain hierarchical order while simultaneously fostering horizontal exchange, flexibility, and creative solutions to problems. But this balance is precisely what the civilian (and military) leadership must foster in order for peacekeeping operations to be successful. For more information about the Friends of ACUNS Book Award, visit our website at www.acuns.org.

ACUNS-ASIL workshop

Influencing Policy on Maritime Piracy Workshop held on October 16-17, 2009 • ASIL Headquarters, Washington DC Maritime piracy has once again found its way onto the general public’s radar. While the number of incidents has increased, for commercial shippers, protecting against piracy is not new. It is an ongoing problem, not only in the Gulf of Aden, but in many regions of the world. Piracy has led to the loss of seamen’s lives, the loss of property, and the increased cost of doing business for shippers, among other consequences. By some reports, the majority of events go unreported. How can private and public actors respond to this criminal activity on the high seas, especially off the failed state of Somalia? Several countries, including the United States, Great Britain, France, India, and China, have collaborated to patrol the corridor between the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The UN Security Council has authorized extraordinary measures to allow these navies to act against pirates in sovereign Somali territory. This military activity has a preventative purpose. Yet as many commentators have remarked, the real challenge arises in apprehending and prosecuting pirates. What to do with pirates has become the central legal question of the current anti-piracy campaign.

Key questions included: •

•

• •

Can the crime of piracy be added to the jurisdiction of the ICC? If so, what is the process for doing so? Given the politics around the 2010 ICC review conference (the possibility that the crime of aggression will be added to the ICC’s jurisdiction; the desire on the part of some to add terrorism), how likely is it that the ICC might try pirates in the near future? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using (third party) national governments to try apprehended pirates? How might universal jurisdiction work in practice with regard to the crime of piracy in the current era? What alternative governance options exist to prosecute pirates? What are the prospects for a special tribunal on piracy? How might this be established? By whom or under whose auspices? Through what processes? f o r a l i s t o f pa r t i c i pa n t s , a n d t o f i n d o u t t h e r e s u lt s , p l e a s e t u r n t o pa g e 1 3 >

On October 16 - 17, 2009, ACUNS, The American Society of International Law (ASIL) and One Earth Future Foundation (OEF) hosted a workshop at the ASIL headquarters in Washington, D.C. that sought to assess the various options that exist in international law to prosecute pirates, including the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Tribunal, a special tribunal, and national prosecutions. The workshop was entitled, Suppressing Maritime Piracy: Exploring the Options in International Law.

AM10

thank you the 2010 acuns annual meeting event co-ordinators would like to thank the following partners and sponsors for their generous support: • Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research • Austrian Institute of International Affairs • Austrian Ministry for European and International Affairs • Austrian Parliament • Austrian Science and Research Office Ljubljana • Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue • City of Vienna • Foreign Policy and United Nations Association of Austria • Government of Canada • Government of Slovenia • Switzerland Federal Department of Foreign Affairs • The Renner Institute • UN Office at Vienna • United Nations Information Service • University of Vienna

Benefits for members: • subscription and electronic access to the quarterly journal, Global Governance and ACUNS’ quarterly newsletter

• access to official UN system meetings and library collections New Individual Members

Akordy Abingya Hannah Davies Daniel Feakes Miyuki Fuji Sara Grilc Yulia Gusynina Aiko Ikemura Amaral Florian Kaulich Marc Konan Anne Lange

Charles Leacock Zuzana Lehmannova Patrick Loch Itieno Lumumba Michal Mlynār Cristina Müller Katharina Noussi Gray Southon Maria Julia Trombetta

New Insitutional Members

Webster University, Vienna

thanks to our Category 1 consultative status with ECOSOC

• access to our global network through our liaison offices in Delhi, Geneva, New York, and Vienna

• opportunities to participate in ACUNS events that address

pressing global issues by putting researchers in conversation with practitioners PLUS Institutional Members can designate up to four representatives who will each receive the same benefits plus the opportunity to profile new programs or projects on the ACUNS website.

ACUNS-ASIL workshop results

Influencing Policy on Maritime Piracy Workshop held on October 16-17, 2009 • ASIL Headquarters, Washington DC Results of the workshop From this conference, a practical method for improving prosecution of piracy emerged: equipment laws as an evidentiary standard to prove the intent to commit piracy. The One Earth Future Foundation took this conclusion and successfully promoted equipment laws as a viable alternative to a land invasion in Somalia to over 500 key contacts including: US Department of Defense, US Department of State, US Coast Guard, Indian, Kenyan, Seychelles, Tanzanian, Egyptian and Philippine embassies and officials, US Senate Foreign Relations and Judiciary staffers, Working Group 2 (legal issues) of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, International Maritime Organization, International Maritime Bureau, UK military, UK Maritime Security Department, Lloyds Market Association, seafarer welfare representatives (Seamens Church Institute), international shipping associations (International Chamber of Shipping), trade unions (International Transport Workers Federation), UN representatives (UNODC), and think tanks (Brookings, Chatham House). In May, OEF’s equipment laws proposal was discussed at Working Group 2 (legal issues) of the UN Security Council Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, and was placed as a continuing agenda item for all future discussions. It was also mentioned in a speech by US Assistant Secretary of State, Andrew Shapiro as a viable way forward to deal with piracy.

workshop participants: Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director, American Society of International Law John Bellinger III, Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State of the United States, Bush Administration David Glazier, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Patricia Goff, Executive Director, Academic Council on the United Nations System Roger Hawkes, Director of Corporate Security and Crisis Management, Global Industries Robert Haywood, Chief Vision Officer and Executive Director, One Earth Future Foundation Eugene Kontorovich, Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University Charles Leacock, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, Barbados Rear Admiral Charles Michel, U.S Coast Guard and Military Advisor to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Bernard Oxman, Richard A. Hausler Professor of Law, University of Miami Leila Sadat, Henry H. Oberschelp Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law Benjamin Schiff, Professor, Politics Department, Oberlin College Michael Struett, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, North Carolina State University Ramesh Thakur, Professor, University of Waterloo, Canada and Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations Helmut Türk, Vice-President, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Beth Van Schaack, Santa Clara University Law School

Workshop report available on ACUNS website:

www.acuns.org For more on One Earth Future Foundation’s efforts to stem Maritime Piracy, visit their website at

www.oneearthfuture.org

A c a d e m i c C o u n c i l o n t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s S ys t e m

Building Peace After War Mats Berdal Published By: Routledge for IISS, 2009 ISBN: 978-0415474368 The widespread practice of intervention by outside actors aimed at building ‘sustainable peace’ within societies ravaged by war has been a striking feature of the post- Cold War era. But, at a time when more peacekeepers are deployed around the world than at any other point in history, is the international will to intervene beginning to wane? And how capable are the systems that exist for planning and deploying ‘peacebuilding’ missions of fulfilling the increasingly complex tasks set for them? In Building Peace After War, Mats Berdal addresses these and other crucial questions, examining the record of interventions from Cambodia in the early 1990s to contemporary efforts in Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The book analyses the nature of the modern peacebuilding environment, in particular the historical and psychological conditions that shape it, and addresses the key tasks faced by outside forces in the early and critical ‘post-conflict’ phase of an intervention. In doing so, it asks searching questions about the role of military force in support of peacebuilding, and the vital importance of legitimacy to any intervention.

From Desolation to Reconstruction: Iraq’s Troubled Journey Mokhtar Lamani and Bessma Momani (Eds) Published by: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2010 ISBN: 978-1554582297 Iraq’s streets are unsafe, its people tormented, and its identity as a state challenged from within and without. For some, Iraq is synonymous with internal hatred, bloodshed, and sectarianism. The contributors to this book, however, know another Iraq: a country that was once full of hope and achievement and that boasted one of the most educated workforces in its region— a cosmopolitan secular society with a great tradition of artisans, poets, and intellectuals. The memory of that Iraq inspired the editors of this volume to explore Iraq’s current struggle. The contributors delve into the issues and concerns of building a viable Iraqi state and recognize the challenges in bringing domestic reconciliation and normalcy to Iraqis.

Development Dialogue

Gender, Human Security and the United Nations: Security Language as a Political Framework for Women

Kumi Naidoo Published By: Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, 2010 ISBN: 978-9185214570

Natalie Florea Hudson Published By: Routledge, 2009 ISBN: 978-0415777827

This volume offers the insights and reflections – both critical and self-critical – of a prominent civil society activist who has been engaged in local and global struggles for emancipation for over 30 years. On the basis of his own experiences in many different contexts Kumi Naidoo pleads for the involvement of ordinary people in the work for greater justice in this world. His point of departure is that civil society cannot be strengthened in a vacuum. Its achievements must be the result of actions by real people dealing with real problems. The volume deals with several of today’s most burning issues and also touches on sensitive matters within the global movements engaged in struggles for justice and equality. It does not avoid unpopular views on several issues, and advocates engagement with representatives of various agencies, including controversial ones such as faith-based organisations and the business community. While being guided by a notion of non-violent forms of resistance, the author nonetheless promotes radical alternatives to the existing reproduction of societies as a necessity to meet the challenges in securing the survival of the human species and a decent life for all. His reflections add to the search for sustainable alternatives and the potential contributions that concerned citizen action can offer. This volume thereby also contributes to a better understanding of the potential that a so-called ‘third United Nations’ can offer to global governance issues currently at stake.

Today, many complex global problems are being located within the security logic. From the environment to HIV/AIDS, state and nonstate actors have made a practice out of securitizing issues that are not conventionally seen as such. As most prominently demonstrated by Security Council Resolution 1325 (2001), activists for women’s rights have increasingly framed women’s concerns and gender inequality as security issues in an attempt to gain access to the international security agenda, particularly in the context of the United Nations. In analyzing the use of the security language, this book examines the nature and implications of the securitization process as a political framework for the world’s women. In examining the relationship between women, gender and the international security agenda not only interrogates the meaning of international security in terms discourse and practice, but also the larger goals and strategies of the global women’s movement. This research traces and analyzes the organizational dynamics of women’s activism in the United Nations system and how women have come to embrace and been impacted by the security framework, globally and locally. From a feminist and human security perspective, this book finds that engendering the security discourse has had both a broadening and limiting effect, highlighting reasons to be skeptical of securitization as an inherently beneficial strategy.

Recent

Member

Publications

How to File Complaints on Human Rights Violations: A Manual for Individuals and NGOs

Lawfare: Use of the Definition of Aggressive War by the Soviet and Russian Governments

Klaus Hüfner Published By: Bonn: UNO-Verlag, 2010 ISBN 978-3923904662

Christi Scott Bartman Published By: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010 ISBN: 978-1443821360

This manual on how the existing human rights mechanisms and procedures of the United Nations, UNESCO and ILO function is the fifth, updated and enlarged edition. It is written for individuals and NGOs with the intention of increasing the still lacking transparency and of offering practical guidance. It includes, inter alia, important addresses, charts describing the different procedures and model forms for communications, and detailed references.

One might ask why the Soviet Union so adamantly promoted the definition of aggression and aggressive war while, as many have noted, conducting military actions that appeared to violate the very definition they espoused in international treaties and conventions. Lawfare: Use of the Definition of Aggressive War by the Soviet and Russian Governments demonstrates that through the use of treaties the Soviet Union and Russian Federation practiced a program of “lawfare” long before the term became known. Lawfare, as applied in this work, is the manipulation or exploitation of the international legal system to supplement military and political objectives. This work is unique in that it not only traces the evolution of the definition of aggression and aggressive war from the Soviet and Russian Federation perspective, it looks at that progression both from the vantage point of leading edge legal legitimacy and its concurrent use as a means of lawfare to control other states legally, politically and equally as important, through the public media of propaganda.

So far, earlier editions of this book have been translated into 12 other languages and appeared in 19 editions, often enlarged by chapters on regional human rights mechanisms and by detailed information about specific national states reports and the concluding remarks of the corresponding treaty bodies within the UN system.

ICAO: A History of the International Civil Aviation Organization David MacKenzie Published By: University of Toronto Press, 2010 ISBN: 978-1442640108 A United Nations specialized agency, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) oversees and encourages the development of civil aviation around the world. ICAO is the largest and most important organization involved with flight safety, and its technical standards, legal regulations, and operating procedures have been essential in the development of commercial aviation. In the first history of this important UN body, David MacKenzie touches on issues ranging from the Cold War to economic regulation and development assistance. With the rise of aviation terrorism, MacKenzie demonstrates that ICAO has assumed a leading role in the struggle to secure civil aviation against sabotage and hijacking, while providing a forum for international concerns and disputes. A broad political-diplomatic history of the organization and the role that it played in the evolution of civil aviation, this work offers a unique perspective on modern transportation and international cooperation.

Reforming the United Nations: The Challenge of Working Together Joachim Muller Published By: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010 ISBN: 9004178430 What are the limits of UN system reform? Recent efforts in governance and institutional reform demonstrate that the hurdles are tremendous. The never-ending Security Council reform resulted in disappointment for hopeful governments. The system-wide coherence initiatives covering environment, gender, and ‘Delivering as One’ at country level provide a sobering picture. Inter-agency coordination on climate change, food security, and the global financial crisis did not result in joint programmes. Instead, new entities have diminished the role of the UN which operates on the OECD principles of ‘aid effectiveness.’ Consolidation and merging of UN mandates and structures appear to be a precondition for coherent and efficient action: A conclusion which dominates this edition of the publication series on ‘Reforming the United Nations’.

The European Union and Peacebuilding: Policy and Legal Aspects Steven Blockmans, Jan Wouters, Tom Ruys (Eds) Published By: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2010 ISBN: 978-9067043298 ‘Peacebuilding’ forms an integral part of the EU’s external policy efforts to break the cycle of conflict, insecurity and poverty. It has triggered questions regarding the institutional, legal and operational mechanisms put in place to build peace in post-conflict environments, questions which are explored here by leading practitioners and academics.

c o n t i n u e d o n n e x t pa g e >

Please note: Submissions of books for inclusion in the ACUNS Newsletter should be for publications no earlier than 2009.

Recent Member Publications

THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL ON THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM

> continued from page 11

The Dynamics of International Law Paul F. Diehl and Charlotte Ku Published by: Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN: 978-0521121477

Membership form Member Information

Paul F. Diehl and Charlotte Ku’s new framework for international law divides it into operating and normative systems. The authors provide a theory of how these two systems interact, which explains how changes in one system precipitate changes and create capacity in the other. A punctuated equilibrium theory of system evolution, drawn from studies of biology and public policy studies, provides the basis for delineating the conditions for change and helps explain a pattern of international legal change that is often infrequent and sub-optimal, but still influential. • • •

Proposes a new framework for international law, which addresss new questions Provides a new theory of international legal change, thereby helping analysts understand when and why new elements of the legal system appear Provides a nuanced view of how international law functions, showing how even the suboptimal performance of the international legal system can still influence conduct in the international system

The History of Peace-building in East Timor: The Issues of International Interventions

Prefix:

o Dr. o Mr. o Ms. o Mrs. o Miss

First Name: Last Name: Address:

Country:

Telephone:

Fax:

Email:

o Yes, I would like to receive the ACUNS newsletter electronically What best describes your area of area of expertise? (optional):

Membership Type

o Renewal o New Member

Katsumi Ishizuka Published By: Cambridge University Press India, 2010 ISBN: 978-8175967359

o Institutional Member

Payment Options

This book comprehensively analyses various international responses during East Timor’s pre- and post-independence eras and examines the process of peace-building after the referendum. It assesses the legitimacy of each response and policy, how these influenced East Timor as a newly independent state, and what the international society expects in the future from the country in turmoil for so long. This book consists of three sections detailing the history of the crisis, policy analysis and comparative analysis with peace-building initiatives by the UN in Cambodia.

o Check enclosed o Mastercard

o Money order enclosed o Visa

Card Number: ___ ___ ___ ___ /___ ___ ___ ___ /___ ___ ___ ___ /__ ___ ___ ___ Expiration Date: ___ ___ /___ ___

Signature:

Return payment to: Please note that membership fees are in US funds.

Institutional Membership (US $) Annual Fee $360.00

Individual Membership (US $) Extended Term (five year) Sponsoring Over $40,000 income Up to $40,000 income Retired Person Student 16

Annual Fee $425.00 $155.00 $ 95.00 $ 70.00 $ 50.00

o o o o o

ACUNS / Wilfrid Laurier University 75 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON • N2L 3C5 CANADA OR Fax: 519.884.5097 Cheques must be made payable to WLU-ACUNS. IPOs must be payable at Canadian banks.

For more information, please contact: Tel: 011 44 519.884.0710 ext. 2766 or visit www.acuns.org An ACUNS annual membership is based on four quarters to coincide with four issues of the journal, Global Governance, which you receive with your membership.

MISC-0341-Aug10 ACUNS Newsletter summer #83 27.07.10

Fee Schedule