The World March will begin in New Zealand on October 2, 2009, the anniversary of Gandhi’s birth, declared the “International Day of Non-Violence” by the United Nations. It will conclude in the Andes Mountains (Punta de Vacas, Aconcagua, Argentina) on January 2, 2010. The March will last 90 days, three long months of travel. It will pass through all climates and seasons, from the hot summer of the tropics and the deserts, to the winter of Siberia. The stages will be the longest American and Asian, both almost a month. A permanent base of a hundred people of different nationalities will complete the journey.

Why

Because we can end world hunger with 10% of what is spent on arms. Imagine how life would be if 30-50% of the arms budget went toward improving people’s lives instead of being used for destruction.

Because eliminating wars and violence means leaving human pre-history behind and taking a giant step forward in the evolution of our species..

Because we are accompanied by the voices of all the war-torn generations that came before us. The echo of their voices still resounds throughout the world, wherever armed conflict leaves its sinister memorial to the dead, disappeared, disabled and displaced.

Because a “world without wars” is an image that opens the future and seeks to become reality in every corner of the planet, as violence gives way to dialog.

The moment has come for the voiceless to be heard! Out of agonizing and urgent need, millions of human beings are crying out for an end to wars and violence.

We can make that happen by uniting all the forces of pacifism and active non-violence worldwide.

When

The World March will begin in New Zealand on October 2, 2009, the anniversary of Gandhi’s birth, declared the “International Day of Non-Violence” by the United Nations. It will conclude in the Andes Mountains (Punta de Vacas, Aconcagua, Argentina) on January 2, 2010.

The March will last 90 days, three long months of travel. It will pass through all climates and seasons, from the hot summer of the tropics and the deserts, to the winter of Siberia.

Who is participating

The March was initiated by “World Without Wars,” an international organization that has been working for 15 years in the fields of pacifism and non-violence.

The World March, however, will be created and shaped by everyone. Open to any person, organization, collective, group, political party, business, etc., that shares the same aspirations and sensibility, this project is not something closed. Instead, it is a journey that will be progressively enriched as different initiatives set their contributions in motion.

That is why this is an invitation to anyone and everyone to participate freely. So that wherever the March goes, the local people can contribute their creativity in a great convergence of multiple activities.

There’s space for everything the imagination is capable of conceiving.

The possible channels of participation are multiple and diverse, including virtual participation in the March through Internet.
This is a march by and for the people, with hopes of reaching most of the world’s population. For this reason we are asking all media to spread the word about this journey around the world for Peace and Non-violence.

What is going to happen

In every city the March visits, local individuals and groups will organize forums, meetings, festivals, conferences, and events (sports, cultural, social, musical, artistic, educational, etc., depending on their own creative initiative.

At this time hundreds of projects have already been set in motion by different individuals and organizations.

What are our goals

To denounce the dangerous world situation that is leading us closer and closer to nuclear war, which would be the greatest catastrophe in human history – a dead end.

To give a voice to the majority of world citizens who want peace. Although the majority of the human race opposes the arms race, we are not sending out a unified signal. Instead we are letting ourselves be manipulated by a powerful minority and suffering the consequences. The time has come to stand together and show our opposition. Join a multitude of others in sending a clear signal, and your voice will have to be heard!

To achieve the eradication of nuclear weapons; the progressive and proportional reduction of non-nuclear arms; the signing of non-aggression treaties among nations; and the renunciation by governments of war as a way to resolve conflicts.

To expose the many other forms of violence (economic, racial, sexual, religious…) that are currently hidden or disguised by their perpetrators; and to provide a way for all who suffer such violence to be heard.

To create global awareness – as has already happened with environmental issues – of the urgent need to condemn of all forms of violence and bring about real Peace.

http://www.marchamundial.org/

…Working hard to publish the site ASAP…

Overview and General Information About the UN

United Nations Home Page
The homepage of the United Nations, run by the UN Department of Public Information, is the major site for information about core UN activities, including the Secretary General, General Assembly and the Security Council.

United Nations System Chart
Excellent chart illustrating the UN system and how the various UN bodies, Programmes, Funds and Specialized Agencies interact.

About the UN
This UN page provides background and general information about the United Nations.

History of the United Nations
This UN page provides some brief information on how the UN was formed.

UNO Opened; Attlee Asks World Unity (January 11, 1946)
Front page article from the New York Times, January 10, 1946 – reporting on the inaugural sitting of the United Nations General Assembly in London.

Main UN Bodies

Main Bodies of the UN
This page provides an overview and links to homepages of the main bodies of the UN.

General Assembly
The General Assembly is the only UN body to represent all UN member states. Each member state has one vote and while most decisions are taken by simple majority, key issues including on international peace and security and the UN budget require a two-thirds majority.

Security Council
The Security Council is the United Nations’ most powerful body. It has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” Five powerful countries sit as “permanent members” along with ten other member states, elected for two-year terms.

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is the principal UN body coordinating the economic and social work of the organization. Unlike its twin – the Security Council – ECOSOC enjoys little authority in international policymaking.

Secretariat
Headed by the Secretary General, the Secretariat carries out the substantive and administrative work of the United Nations.

International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the UN system’s highest judicial body. The ICJ arbitrates between states, who must agree to abide by the Court’s decision before their case will be heard.

UN Membership

List of UN Member States
This page lists in alphabetical order all UN members and the date they became members.

Growth in UN Membership
This page provides a timeline of UN membership, showing for each year the new UN members.

Security Council Membership
This GPF page lists Security Council membership from 1946 to the present.

Economic and Social Council Membership
This GPF page lists members of ECOSOC since 1997.

UN Documents, Press Releases and News

ODS Search (Official Documents System)
The UN ODS search covers all types of official United Nations documentation, beginning in 1993. Older UN documents are added to the system on a daily basis. ODS also provides access to the resolutions of the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council from 1946 onwards.

UN Documentation Centre
The UN Documentation Centre provides listings and search facilities for UN Documents, including resolutions and documents of the Security Council, General Assembly, ECOSOC, Secretariat, International Court of Justice and Trusteeship Council.

UNBISnet
The UN Bibliographic Information System provides a catalogue of UN documents and publications indexed by the UN Dag Hammarskjöld Library and the Library of the UN Office at Geneva. The coverage of UNBISnet is from 1979 onward, however, older documents are being added to the catalogue on a regular basis as a result of retrospective conversion. The site also provides links to voting records and speeches.

UN-I-QUE: United Nations Info Quest
Created by the Dag Hammarskjöld Library, the UN Info Quest serves as a guide to the document symbols of tens of thousands of UN documents and publications from 1946 to the present.

Landmark GA Documents
Prepared by the Dag Hammarskjöld Library, “landmark” documents from several important GA sessions.

UN Press Releases – Last 30 Days
Search for UN Press Releases published in the last 30 days.

UN Press Releases – Archives
Search for UN Press Releases older than 30 days.

UN News Centre
The UN News Centre offers the most current news of UN activities.

UN Meetings and Events

Conferences and Events
This page provides comprehensive information on UN conferences and events.

Journal of the United Nations
Updated on a daily basis, the Journal of the United Nations lists meetings of the Security Council, ECOSOC, General Assembly and more.

Calendar of UN Events
This page links to calendars of events at the UN, including, conferences, meetings, launching of major reports, exhibits and observances.

Exhibitions at UN Headquarters
This page provide information on the exhibitions at the UN headquarters in New York.

UN Website Tools

Official Web Site Locator for the UN System
This UN page provides a comprehensive and easy-to-use access point for web resources throughout the UN system as a whole, including well-organized lists of links, search capabilities, alphabetical index, and more.

Recent Additions
This UN page lists new developments at the UN and on the UN website.

Permanent Missions to the UN

Blue Book – Permanent Missions to the United Nations
Contact information for staff at all permanent missions to the UN.

Permanent Missions to the UN (New York)
This page links to all permanent missions to the UN located in New York.

Permanent Missions to the UN (Geneva)
This page links to all permanent missions to the UN located in Geneva.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/resource/unindex.htm

there is a sixth peremenant member in the UN. it always uses the veto indirectly.

find Israel a closer seat to the five members.

I join my voice to those who wish to live in a world where all people are equal under the law, and all nations are represented justly under international law; a world which has no place for VETO.

The world is still suffering from war, poverty and environmental pollution. The United Nations, being the institution representing the international community of nations, has not been able to confront these problems effectively.

The Security Council is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security; therefore serious conflicts are put before it. The Security Council is not a court of low, nor an elected parliament, it consists of 15 countries. While 5 are permanent the other 10 are to be replaced regularly.Any country among the five permanent members of the Security Council has the power to unilaterally veto any resolution put before the council, irrespective of reason or consequence, even if all other members of that council voted in favor of the resolution.

Logically, the Security Council is incapable of issuing serious resolutions or even revoking stances against any veto holding member. Furthermore, any resolution it dose pass is formulated to avoid 5 possible vetoes. Logically again, this would deprive all resolutions of any possible objectivity. Justice simply works not this way. Through individuals, groups, intellectuals, prophets and reformers, humankind has struggled and made many sacrifices over centuries, thereby managing to give birth to social structures where a judicial system settles disputes impartially between and among individuals in a given society.

However, the world order today has not reached this level of conflict resolution internationally. Nor does it, at the international level fall in tune with the principles of justice, democracy and equity. This validates the law of the jungle, and deprives all of the opportunities to achieve just solutions towards peace and security.

Your participation does not require an agreement with specific conditions, articles or the above mentioned points. When you participate in this project, you will only be indorsing the following statement:

I join my voice to those who wish to live in a world where all people are equal under the law, and all nations are
represented justly under international law; a world which has no place for VETO

THE VETO IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Introduction
The Preamble to the United Nations- (UN) charter opens with “we the peoples of the
United Nations determined:
to save (author emphasis) succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which
•
twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the
•
human person, in equal rights of men and women and of nations large and
small…” (author emphasis)
Chapter five of the UN Charter, however, confers the primary responsibility to save
succeeding generations on the Security Council.
The composition of the Council has always made people raise eyebrows, however.
Article 23 of the UN Charter gave five countries (the US, the UK, the Union of Soviet
Socialists Republics (now Russia), China and France) permanent membership of the
Council. The Charter never mentioned why the five gained that privileged position.
Critics argue that fairness and greater legitimacy is lacking in the Security Council. Their
concerns are supported when the composition of the Security Council is analyzed in the
context of the fact that the five permanent members must all concur to all decisions taken
by the Council. Thus, they can individually veto decisions they do not favour.
Realists have always argued that international organizations are a reflection of the
dynamics and processes of international power, reflecting the will of the states that
control them.1 In establishing an organization, the most powerful states in the system
create and shape institutions so that they can maintain their share of world power or even
increase it.2 It will come as no surprise to the realists that the veto found its way to the
Security Council.
It is reported that in February 1945, the leaders of Britain, the US and the USSR, met in
Yalta and discussed the impending conclusion of the Second World War. It was at that
meeting that they agreed on forming a UN, using the veto system of voting in the then
proposed Security Council. These three countries later invited China and France to help
form the UN.3
The veto has hardly aided the Security Council to maintain international peace and
security. As many as 98 of the vetoes cast between 1946 and 2002 were either about the
election of a new Secretary-General or the election of new members. Vetoes that were
not about a Secretary-General or new members were cast because the issues concerned
touched a vital interest of a permanent member, such as the issues of Taiwan (in the case
of China) and Israel (in the US case).4
Fairness
A straight forward definition of the concept fairness has eluded many. Though it can be
defined, it is difficult to have a definition acceptable to all. Franck Thomas thinks fairness
is a product of social context and history. It is not easy to define but everyone has a sense
of what is unfair.5 Fairness is something within reason; it follows a set of rules or
principles.
One can say that neither the conferring of the veto nor its usage is fair. It undermines the
UN principle of equality among nations. The Charter’s silence on the criteria for giving
the permanent five vetos is itself unfair. If the decision is based on democracy, then the
world’s largest democracy, India, has no veto. The population size of a state could not be
said to be a relevant yardstick. India once again deserves to be a member if that argument
is upheld. Africa has a quarter of UN members, yet has no veto wielding state.
Financially, Japan contributes to the UN regular budget more than UK, France, Russia,
and China combined; yet it has no veto.6 The veto suffers from both substantive fairness
(because its application is unbalanced) and procedural (right process) fairness. 7
Legitimacy
It is important to emphasize the fact that fairness in a system enhances its legitimacy.
Superficially, the Security Council claims legitimacy from the UN Charter that
establishes it and empowers it. But legitimacy goes beyond the book or paper legitimacy.
It includes popular acceptance. Popular acceptance largely comes from popular
participation. To Robert Keohane an international organization’s legitimacy is divided
into two: input and output legitimacy. An organization gets its output legitimacy based on
its achievement while input legitimacy comes when the process by which decisions are
reached has diversity of representation and inclusiveness. Both are important for a
multilateral organization. Its output legitimacy rests on its input legitimacy. Input
legitimacy is also derived from broader representation.8 Both input and output legitimacy
seem to be lacking in the Security Council. It translates into that fact that members obey
or do the bidding of the Council because it comes with some force.
Effectiveness
Proponents of the veto have argued that it is meant to bring effectiveness in the affairs of
the Security Council, especially when Chapter 5 is interpreted in whole. It brings out the
fact that membership to the Council is first due to a state’s ability to maintain peace and
security. It is fairly in the right direction not to compromise effectiveness in analyzing the
veto. Taking away the veto (though not practicable) might see passive participation of
the big powers in UN affairs. That was partly the cause of the failure of the League of
Nations. Increasing the number of countries with veto power might make the Council less
effective. But it is worth pointing out that there is nothing distinctive about the current
permanent five that other countries lack. There is also the difficulty of convincing
opponents that casting about a hundred vetos against a Secretary-General or UN member
to-be contributes to effectiveness.
STATEMENTS ON THE VETO
There seems to be consensus that the veto has not helped the UN cause much. The High
Level Panel of Eminent Persons set up to examine current threats to international peace
and security was tactful about the veto. It recommended the expansion of the Security
Council but never the veto. It said: “as a whole, the institution of the veto has an
anachronistic character that is …unsuitable in an increasingly democratic age… We
recommend that under any reform proposal, there should be no expansion of the veto”. 9
Conclusion
Sooner or later, the veto wielding nations will have to give up the veto or rarely use it,
otherwise, they take away what is left of the Security Council and damage the UN the
more.
It will be necessary for the permanent five to set themselves criteria or a code of ethics
for casting the veto. The code should be public and unambiguous to give others the
opportunity to judge them.
The 21st century has called into question the basis for preferential treatment in an
organization of equals like the UN. It has called into question the relevance of certain
articles in the UN Charter. Weak states have become disillusioned with the Security
Council and see it as a forum for legitimizing dominance of the great powers over them.10
It is about power and majority interest. How the UN as a body survives this puzzle is now
the challenge.
1
Newman, Edward, Ramesh Thakur and John Thirman, 2006, “Multilateralism Under Challenge?” to be
published in Multilateralism Under Challenge? Power, International Order and Structural Change, UNU
Press, draft
2
Mearsheimer, John, 1994/1995, “The False Promise of International Institutions” in International
Security, Vol.19, No.3 (Winter) p283
3
The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2006, http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/Y/YaltaCon.asp (accessed 11
June 2006)
4
Wallensteen, Peter and Patrick Johansson, 2004, “Security Council Decisions in Perspective” in David M.
Malone The Security Council: from The cold War to the 21st Century, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, p20
5
Franck, M. Thomas, 1995, Fairness in International Law and Institutions ,Clarendon Press Oxford,p14
6
FDFA, Political Affairs Division III, Contributions to UN Regular Budgetin 2005,
http://www.onu.admin.ch/sub_uno/e/uno/chun/finance.ContentPar.0003.UpFile.tmp/rp_060228_contribu_e
.pdf (accessed 3 June 2006)
7
Franck, M. Thomas, 1995, Fairness in International Law and Institutions ,Clarendon Press Oxford
8
Keohane, Robert, 2006, “The Contingent Legitimacy of Multilateralism”, Multilateralism Under
Challenge? Power, International Order, and Structural Change”, in Edward Newman, Ramesh Thakur,
and John Tirman (eds.), UNU Press, Tokyo, p4, 6
9
UN General Assembly,2004, Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit,A/59/565,pp66-68
10
Thakur, Ramesh, 2006, The United Nations, Peace and Security- From Collective Security to the
Responsibility to Protect, Cambridge University Press, p292
References:
1.  FDFA, Political Affairs Division III, Contributions to UN Regular Budgetin 2005,
http://www.onu.admin.ch/sub_uno/e/uno/chun/finance.ContentPar.0003.UpFile.tmp/rp_060228_c
ontribu_e.pdf (accessed 3 June 2006)
2.  Franck, M. Thomas, 1995, Fairness in International Law and Institutions ,Clarendon Press
Oxford.
3.  Keohane, Robert, 2006, “The Contingent Legitimacy of Multilateralism”, Multilateralism Under
Challenge? Power, International Order, and Structural Change”, in Edward Newman, Ramesh
Thakur, and John Tirman (eds.), UNU Press, Tokyo.
4.  Mearsheimer, John, 1994/1995, “The False Promise of International Institutions” in International
Security, Vol.19, No.3 (Winter).
5.  Newman, Edward, Ramesh Thakur and John Thirman, 2006, “Multilateralism Under Challenge?”
to be published in Multilateralism Under Challenge? Power, International Order and Structural
Change, UNU Press, draft.
6.  Thakur, Ramesh, 2006, The United Nations, Peace and Security- From Collective Security to the
Responsibility to Protect, Cambridge University Press.
7.  The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2006, http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/Y/YaltaCon.asp
(accessed 11 June 2006)
8.  UN General Assembly,2004, Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit,A/59/565.
9.  Wallensteen, Peter and Patrick Johansson, 2004, “Security Council Decisions in Perspective” in
David M. Malone The Security Council: from The cold War to the 21st Century, Boulder: Lynne
Rienner.
The Author:
Name: Anass Mohammed
Designation: Journalist- Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (Radio Newsroom)/ Muslim
Searchlight
Contact Details:
P.O.Box AN 11076
Accra-North, Ghana,
West Africa
E-mail: anass4000@yahoo.com
Tel: +233 24 4051132
Fax: +233 21 221165
Anass Mohammed is a journalist in Ghana trained at the Ghana Institute of Journalism
where he completed in 2003. He is an alumnus of the UN University 2006 IC courses. He
took the courses; International Development and Cooperation and UN Systems. He has
worked before at the Accra Zoo in Ghana as a Zookeeper.
Currently, he works as a journalist for the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation and the
Muslim Searchlight Magazine, all in Ghana.
http://sites.unu.edu/ic/alums/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/anass_final.pdf

Changing Patterns in the Use of the Veto in the Security Council
This table and graph show which countries have used the veto and how often (1945-present).

Use of the Veto in the Security Council
This graph shows the use of the veto, year-by-year, in proportion to all resolutions (to 1992).

Subjects of UN Security Council Vetoes
A listing of the subjects vetoed by the Security Council with texts of the draft resolutions. This information is not kept in any public access format by the UN

By Heikelina Verrijn Stuart
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
September 21, 2008

In a further setback in the case against the first defendant at the ICC, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the Trial Chamber (TC) decided on 3 September that it was not satisfied with the proposals of the prosecution to solve the problem through the disclosure of possibly exculpatory evidence, obtained from the UN and NGOs under assurance of confidentiality. The TC still considers the new proposals as an infringement of the rights of the accused to a fair trial. Remarkably, the TC lays the blame completely on the prosecution rather than the information providers, who, according to the TC, have “sought to discharge their respective mandates and entered the agreements with the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) in good faith.” Of course, when a Trial Chamber wants the OTP to properly disclose evidentiary material to the court and to the accused and his defence, it should primarily target the prosecution and not the UN or the NGOs. However, looking at the attitude of the UN towards the ICC, some concerns seem legitimate.

Friend and working partner

When the ICC was established in Rome in 1998, there was a basic understanding that the UN could be considered the future ICC’s friend and working partner. The Relationship Agreement of October 2004 between UN and ICC acknowledges that “the International Criminal Court is established as an independent permanent institution in relationship with the United Nations system”. In a Rule of Law system the term “independent criminal court” should be considered tautological, since a criminal court can only guarantee a fair trial when it cannot be pressured or manipulated by political, religious or other external powers, even though it will by definition always be functioning in a political context. The UN, however, is still struggling to accept the fact that the ICC can only function as a real criminal court when all UN organs involved put their statements of good intentions into daily practice. The UN, that is to say almost half of its member states, seems to think politics can trump justice and that justice is negotiable. (See former ICTY prosecutor and former High Commissioner for Human Rights in International Herald Tribune, 17 September 2008).

Threatening the ICC fundaments

A first glimpse of a tendency to develop a relationship with the ICC that is much more hands-on and potentially threatening the fundaments of its role as a criminal court, can be found in the March 2005 resolution of the Security Council referring the Darfur situation to the ICC. This Resolution 1593 was met with general elation that the US had abstained, but not vetoed the referral. However, a closer look at the text of this resolution shows not just a willingness to refer a situation, but also an equally strong inclination to limit the power of the ICC. And certainly when reading it in combination with Resolution 1828 of 31 July 2008, extending the mandate of UNAMID – the UN and AU forces – to Darfur, the politics of the states seem to dominate the pursuit of justice.

Article 13 vs. article 16

Why did the referral resolution not mention Article 13 of the ICC Statute, which is the article making possible a referral by the SC of a situation to the ICC, but only Article 16? This negatively formulated article forms the basis for the limitation of the power of the ICC to investigate and prosecute, saying: “No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a Resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect.” This request can be repeated under the same circumstances. The SC used Article 16 to exclude the possibility of ICC prosecution of officials or personnel of non-member states which contribute troops to Darfur, limiting the jurisdiction over these troops exclusively to the sending states. And, more disturbingly, the SC said in the resolution that the only the states directly involved in the conflict were to cooperate fully with the ICC. All other states were only urged to cooperate, thus mitigating an obligation agreed to by the member states of the ICC.

On 31 July, Resolution 1828 came to pass, with Article 16 ominously looming over the text of the resolution and its procès-verbal, both of them a reflection of how shocked many governments were by the request of the chief prosecutor of the ICC for an arrest warrant against Sudan’s president Bashir. China, the Arab League and AU states reacted negatively to the prosecutor’s initiative and wanted to include an Article 16 – temporary – blockade of the arrest warrant added to this resolution, which was meant to extend the UNAMID mission. The SC took note of the concerns raised by members of the Council regarding the application for an arrest warrant, but China’s proposal was not generally accepted. This time it was the US which stood firm and refused to sign a resolution linking the UNAMID mission to a possible prosecution of Bashir or to bow for threat to the UNAMID forces, stressing the independence of the ICC. China expressed the hope that Article 16 would be invoked as soon as possible. And with almost half of the member states supporting this attitude, what was unthinkable in Rome has become a reality ten years later.

Clever compromise

In Rome, Article 16 was a clever compromise between the states who wanted an independent prosecutor and the US wanting to control the prosecutor through the SC. It was only meant to curb the prosecutor if his actions would, in exceptional circumstances, be considered a threat to international peace and security, not to push political interests of UN member states and not to be the basis for a kind of conditional referral, or a referral under threat of a deferral. Article 16 has certainly never been imagined as a tool in the hands of the SC to suspend an investigation or prosecution based on a referral by the SC itself. How can a prosecutor properly function in an independent way if his power to act can be given and retracted whenever it suits the political powers coming together in the SC?

Two arrest warrants, against Harun and Kushayb, have already been issued as a result of the SC Darfur referral, investigations are under way since 2005, witnesses have been traced and heard, victims alerted. Should all this be put on hold for a year or more? Or would the SC consider solely blocking – for the time being – the case against Bashir? Of course the often cynical reality is that the UN is the sum of the member states who will hold on to their political and economic interests. In its relationship with the ICC, however, the UN should act as a partner with a clear-cut policy, not the result of ad hoc political influences.

The politics of peace and justice

Shortly before the request for the arrest warrant of Bashir had been announced, UN Secretary-General Ban-ki-Moon, according to UN News Service on 13 July, emphasized to the Sudanese President that the ICC is independent and that he does not have any influence on the ICC prosecutor. At a later press conference however, he said that “in principle” he believed that peace and justice should go hand in hand, but that he would have “to assess the whole situation when there is an announcement by the ICC”.

“Peace” is the keyword for states when justice is feared to work contrary to their political, economic or other state interests. Undoubtedly, sometimes peace might genuinely be at stake. From the UN angle, the interest of peace could be a reason to act against the prosecutor. The SC, indeed, can only base a referral or suspension on the interest of international peace and security in Chapter VII. And thus, even when there is a near impossibility to assess whether, in an individual situation, a prosecution will influence peace positively or negatively, or at all for that matter, peace will be the cover for the defence of political interests. Besides, all too often the so-called peace processes are merely mirages and political rhetoric, and no reason to stop or postpone attempt to bring perpetrators of horrendous crimes to justice. The position of the ICC is complicated enough as it is in a less than peaceful world. If this court is seen as a tool or instrument in the hands of political powers, which will be the result of an SC keeping the prosecutor on a tight leash, it will damage the very fundaments of the ICC. How convincing is the court as an independent institution, when the SC can hand out jurisdiction over states who have not ratified the ICC treaty while at the same time freeing member states of their obligation to cooperate with the court?

Who controls the ICC prosecutor

From the very start, the question has been: who controls the ICC prosecutor? The states or the judges of the court? In this light, the approach by the UN legal affairs office towards the ICC in the Lubanga case might prove to be even more disruptive than the political machinations within the Security Council. The refusal by the UN to make disclosure of exculpatory evidence in material provided by the UN troops in Congo possibly goes to the heart of the daily procedures at the ICC. The ICC Statute gives room in Article 54(3) for non-disclosure of documents obtained on the condition of confidentiality and solely for the purpose of generating new evidence. The Office of the Prosecutor has, certainly in the first investigations in DRC, widely and routinely collected evidence from both the UN troops, MONUC, and NGOs, who understandably wanted to protect their people on the ground. The ICC judges have spoken critically about this blanket agreement, holding the prosecution responsible for not doing their job. However, the role of the UN as a partner in this enterprise merits scrutiny too. Take the letter of 20 June 2008, written by the UN under Secretary-General for Legal Affairs at the time, Nicholas Michel, proposing that the judges of the Lubanga Trial Chamber would be allowed to read the documents, not at their ICC offices but at the Peace Palace. They would not be allowed to take notes, make copies or any other form of written or verbal record. Notes to the files were allowed to be taken outside the room only. Understandably the TC was irritated and stayed the proceedings just ten days before the trial would have started.

Fair trial

In the recent Decision to prolong the stay, the TC notes that the new proposal by the UN, as negotiated by the prosecution, allows the judges to see the material in their own office, but still objects to them making copies. Notes made by the judges must be redacted, and the documents will not remain at the ICC. This would mean, that only the TC will have seen the evidentiary material, and will not be able to compare details later on when evidence is presented by the parties at trial, and that in the judgement the TC will have to refer to evidence unseen by the accused an his defence. In appeal the Chamber will not be able to see the documents, and will have to rely completely on the Trial Chamber in this respect. A criminal trial is continuously developing, with new evidence coming up, other evidence being withdrawn, witnesses coming and going, new insights in situations and relations growing and in need of being weighed against earlier notions. Undoubtedly the prosecution should never have committed itself to excluding the accused, and the judges, from – exculpatory – evidentiary material, but the UN as an institution should be much more aware of the character of the ICC as a criminal court. The UN has shown a lack of respect for, or understanding of, the ICC as a criminal court and the essence of a fair trial

This site aime to be a platform for anti globalization (anti americanization) and the control of the 5 veto countries on the security council and the United Nations, thus on the whole world which is considered a contadiction with freedom, equality, democracy on which the united nations was established to realize and dissimenate ,