With the establishment of the Central Emergency Relief Fund, the Peacebuilding Commission, the UN Democracy Fund and the Human Rights Council, some major steps have been taken in putting the 2005 World Summit Outcome into practice. United Nations Member States are now turning their attention to another item on their reform agenda, the revitalization of the General Assembly.
Away from the spotlight, an Ad Hoc Working Group has been busy at work in New York for several months. It will issue a report at the end of May with recommendations on how to improve the working methods of the world’s most important deliberative body and restore its overall decision-making authority as originally envisioned in the UN Charter.
This is not the first time that a comprehensive overhaul of the UN General Assembly is being attempted, and it may not be the last. However, dissatisfaction with the performance and purpose of the General Assembly is at an all time high. By nearly all accounts, the General Assembly has failed to live up to its original mandate.
The predicament of the Assembly underpins the case for a parliamentary dimension to the United Nations. The UN and the IPU have already agreed at the highest possible level – that of heads of State and of Speakers of parliaments – that the two bodies should work in tandem in order to connect international decision-making to those mandated to represent the people of the world. This vision has found expression in many activities jointly organized between the UN and the IPU and in a stronger status for the IPU in the General Assembly.
Yet, when it comes to the General Assembly, the full potential of cooperation between the UN and the IPU remains largely untapped. In a statement before the Ad Hoc Working Group on Revitalization in early April, the IPU said that reform of the General Assembly should entail more direct interaction between the two bodies.
Take, for example, the annual Parliamentary Hearing that the IPU holds during the fall session of the General Assembly. Although it attracts a much attention, with hundreds of parliamentarians attending from around the world, the Hearing has not yet become part of the work plan of the General Assembly and has no noticeable impact upon the deliberations of UN member states.
If the Hearing were to work more in tandem with the General Assembly in drawing up its agenda and implementing its conclusions, the result would be a heightened awareness in the world's parliaments of the General Assembly and its work. That very awareness is the first prerequisite for the resolutions of the General Assembly to be taken more seriously at the national level. In addition to a consolidated Parliamentary Hearing more closely linked to the GA agenda, the IPU proposals include a more coordinated information sharing and consultation mechanism. These ideas would go a long way towards creating real synergies between the two organizations, and it should be noted that they are designed to avoid producing extra layers of bureaucracy or interfering with the UN’s own decision-making processes.
On behalf of its Member parliaments, the IPU will follow the revitalization process very closely in the weeks and months to come. There are many encouraging signs from several Member States that the IPU proposals will be given serious consideration. But getting this message accepted by all United Nations Members will not be easy.
