Negotiating in the un General Assembly: The European Union and the Other Major Groups

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 249-255
Author(s):  
Ioannis Vrailas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Overwhelming Majority ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The Other ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Sovereignty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Un General Assembly

The overwhelming majority of the United Nations’ member states remain keen to preserve the traditional intergovernmental nature of the organization in the name of universalism, equality among states and national sovereignty. However, in most negotiating processes, delegations are increasingly content to take part through the groups or sub-groups of which they are members, rather than individually on a national basis. In this regard, the European Union (eu) sets the standards for both organization and effectiveness, especially since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the eu’s Special Observer status, granted by unga Resolution 65/276.

One voice or different choice? Vote defection of European Union member states in the United Nations General Assembly

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 652-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Burmester ◽  
Michael Jankowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Union Member ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
European Union Member States

Existing research suggests that European Union member states are increasingly able to act in concert in the United Nations General Assembly. Based on several hundred co-ordination meetings per year, the European Union ‘speaks with one voice’ on most of the resolutions voted upon in the United Nations General Assembly. However, little is known about instances where the European Union member states do not vote coherently. Three questions remain unanswered. First, what factors determine deviating voting behaviour of European Union member states? Second, who are the most frequent defectors from the European Union’s majority position? Third, which voting blocs within the European Union can be identified? The article answers these questions in a quantitative design by controlling for domestic factors, issues of resolutions and the position of the United States. The results suggest that domestic factors determine deviating voting behaviour far less than agenda-related issues and the position of the United States.

The Participation of the European Union in the Work of the United Nations: Evolving to Reflect the New Realities of Regional Organizations

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Brewer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Regional Organizations ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Common ◽  
A Minor ◽  
The Eu

In May 2011, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 65/276 to provide the European Union with an “enhanced observer status” to participate more extensively in the General Assembly. The EU needed to restructure its participation in international organizations following the Lisbon Treaty, and this resolution effected some of those changes. Numerous UN member states expressed concerns that the expanded participation rights might compromise the integrity of the General Assembly as an inter-state entity. Ultimately, the rights granted pose a minor speculative threat, but offer a considerable opportunity at increasing the ability of regional organizations to better represent the common positions of their member states in the General Assembly and to improve the efficiency of the General Assembly.

The United Nations and the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Monteleone
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Organizational Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) are expressions of a rules-based global order. The EU has enshrined support to the UN in its security strategies, and its priorities indicate an engagement in a wide range of UN programs and activities to maintain the rules-based order and adapt it to face internal and external challenges. The EU and its member states are the largest contributors to the UN budget. Following the adoption of the Lisbon treaty, the EU has increased its representation at the UN, gaining enhanced observer status in the General Assembly. However, because of the intergovernmental nature of the forum, only its member states have the right to vote. This has led scholars to investigate the actorness of the EU at the UN through the analysis of the voting cohesion of EU member states in the General Assembly. Less attention has been paid to the behavior of EU member states in the Security Council. Existing scholarship has tended to analyze how the EU acts within the UN more than inter-organizational cooperation. However, the contribution of the EU and its member states to UN activities in the area of peace and security maintenance is particularly relevant and is a reminder that inter-organizational cooperation deserve greater attention than the one it has received so far.

The parliament of the world? Reflections on the proposal to establish a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 577-599
Author(s):  
Rossana Deplano
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Institutional Changes ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Intergovernmental Organization ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
The World

AbstractOn 5 July 2018, the European Parliament adopted a recommendation to the Council endorsing a proposal for the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. Conceived as a new primary organ of the United Nations (UN), the Parliamentary Assembly aims at complementing the work of the General Assembly by giving direct representation to the peoples of the world and passing binding legislation. This article reconstructs the historical roots of the proposal and speculates about the possible legal implications for both the UN and its member states stemming from the establishment of an elected citizens’ chamber within an intergovernmental organization. An argument is made that in order to achieve the stated goals of the model of United Nations Parliamentary Assembly endorsed by the European Union (EU), the required institutional changes to the UN system would be so radical as to effectively repudiate it in favour of a newly established system of international co-operation.

scholarly journals Proposals for the Negotiation Process on the United Nations Global Compact for Migration

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 682-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Víctor Genina
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Migration ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Global Compact ◽  
Member States ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
High Level

On September 19th, 2016, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted Resolution 71/1, the text of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (the “New York Declaration”). Resolution 71/1 is the outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting on addressing large movements of refugees and migrants, held at the UN headquarters. The New York Declaration reflects how UN member states have decided to address the challenge of large movements of people in two main legal categories: asylum seekers/refugees and migrants. Resolution 71/1 includes an annex titled “Towards a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” (the “global compact for migration” or “global compact”). This document is comprised of several thematic issues related to international migration that will be the basis of a globally negotiated agreement on how member states should respond to international migration at the national, regional, and international levels, as well as to issues related to international migration and development. The global compact for migration is intended to be adopted at a conference on international migration and development before the inauguration of the 73rd annual session of the UN General Assembly in September 2018. This paper addresses how UN member states should plan to address international migration in the future. It does not refer to refugees and asylum seekers: a global compact on refugees will be drafted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2018, and to be presented to the UN General Assembly for states' consideration during its 73rd annual session, which starts in September 2018.1 For those who have been involved in migration issues within the United Nations, the fact that member states have finally agreed to convene an international conference on international migration represents a major achievement. It is the result of an extended process that started decades ago and was made possible by a long chain of efforts by many state delegations and other stakeholders. The global compact for migration will not be the first outcome document dealing exclusively with international migration. A declaration2 adopted at a high-level meeting at the United Nations in October 2013, for example, paved the way for the 2018 conference. Nonetheless, the global compact represents a unique opportunity to address international migration comprehensively and humanely. This paper contributes to the discussion on the elements that should be included in the global compact for migration. The paper is divided into two sections. The first section analyzes the main elements of Annex II, “Towards a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” and the criteria that needs to be adopted in order to achieve a substantive outcome. In particular, participants in the negotiation process should aim to balance the concerns of states and the members of host societies, on one hand, with the needs and rights of migrants, on the other. The second section includes proposals to enrich the final global compact for migration and takes into account two documents written by two different actors within the UN system, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Migration, and the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. In particular, the paper proposes that the global compact for migration: • sets forth principles that can inform the actions of governments in relation to international migration at all levels; • enunciates a clearer definition of state protection responsibilities in relation to migrants in crisis situations and so-called “mixed flows”3; affords a substantive role to civil society organizations, the private sector, and academic institutions in the global compact's follow-up and review process; • defines the institutional framework for the implementation and follow-up of the global compact within the United Nations, including through the work of the UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF); • establishes a mechanism to fund migration policies for states that lack enough resources to invest sufficiently in this task; and • builds a cooperation-oriented, peer-review mechanism to review migration policies. The paper has been conceived as an input for those who will take part in the negotiation of the global compact for migration, as well as those who will closely follow those negotiations. Thus, the paper assumes a level of knowledge on how international migration has been addressed within the United Nations during the last several years and of the complexities of these negotiation processes. The author took part in different UN negotiation processes on international migration from 2004 to 2013. The paper is primarily based on this experience.4

Article 262 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Procedure

Article 229a EC Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to confer jurisdiction, to the extent that it shall determine, on the Court of Justice of the European Union in disputes relating to the application of acts adopted on the basis of the Treaties which create European intellectual property rights. These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

scholarly journals The Limits of Agencification in the European Union

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1223-1255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miroslava Scholten ◽  
Marloes van Rijsbergen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Road ◽  
European Court ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The Eu

Although not explicitly regulated by the EU treaties, EU agencies not only exist but also have increased in number and power. In addition, while EU agencies may exercise very similar functions to those of the Commission, Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) do not list agencies among the possible authors of non-legislative acts. The existing situation raises the questions of the extent to which the ongoing agencification in the EU is legitimate and what its limits are. This article addresses these questions in the light of the old and new Treaties and case law, including the just releasedESMA-shortsellingcase. It shows that while the Lisbon Treaty made a few steps forward on the road of legitimizing EU agencies and delegating important powers to them, the scope of powers that EU agencies can have remains unclear. In this respect, the European Court of Justice's lenient approach in theESMA-shortsellingcase is unfortunate because it neither clarifies the issue nor pushes the Union Legislator and the Member States to address it. Consequently, in the absence of clear limits, further agencification is likely to persist at the risk of increasing the democratic legitimacy deficit and remaining accountability gaps.

Variable Geometry or Concentric Circles: Patterns for the European Union

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Usher
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
Variable Geometry ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Community Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Private Citizens ◽  
The One

Once upon a time, a Professor of European Institutions, at least if a lawyer by training, could simply assert that the European Communities are based on the rule of law, that they create institutions with autonomous powers, which are able to issue legislation binding as law throughout every member State of the Community, and that they create courts which have power to exercise judicial control over a complex network of relationships between the Community institutions, the member States and private citizens. While these statements are still true, however, they must now be laced in a rather more complex context. Furthermore, there is a contrast between on the one hand the intensification (to borrow a word from the Common Agricultural Policy) of certain fundamenta s of the EC legal order in the recent case law of the European Court, and on the other hand attempts by member States to escape this through non-EC forms of cooperation in the framework of the European Union, the development of the idea that not all the rules of the EC Treaty apply to all the member States, and the entry by the majority of the member States into a separate Treaty, the Schengen Agreement, dealing with matters which might be thought to fall under the EC Treaty or the Home Affairs and Justice pillar of the Treaty on European Union—all of which might generically be referred to as variable geometry. In the other direction, it may be observed that large amounts of substantive

Elements of Nordic Practice 2005–2006: Finland

2008 ◽  
Vol 77 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 141-161
Author(s):  
Juha Rainne
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
International Sanctions

AbstractThis report includes selected parts of Finnish state practice in the field of international law in 2005 and 2006. The activities during this period were dominated by Finland's Presidency of the European Union (EU) in the second half of 2006. The report comprises state practice related, inter alia, to humanitarian law, international tribunals, international sanctions, measures to combat terrorism and the work of the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly. Special attention is paid to the activities that took place in the field of international law during the Finnish EU Presidency.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document