United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The abbreviation UNPA can also refer to several other UN-related entities.

A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, or United Nations People's Assembly (UNPA), is a proposed addition to the United Nations System that eventually would allow for direct election of UN parliament members by citizens of all over the world. The reform would also include worldwide presidential election for UN General Secretary by citizens.

Proposals for a UNPA date back to the UN's formation in 1945, but largely stagnated until the 1990s. They have recently gained traction amidst increasing globalization, as national parliamentarians and citizens groups seek to counter the growing influence of unelected international bureaucracies.

Contents

[edit] Purposes

Purposes for the creation of a UNPA include:

  • Enhancing UN accountability. Through a UNPA, citizens could more directly influence the United Nations System, which in 2005 spent more than $1.8 billion of public money[1]. By holding hearings, issuing reports, and passing resolutions, the UNPA could exercise oversight over other UN bodies.
  • Improving UN legitimacy. Resolutions passed by a body of elected representatives could carry more legitimacy than those passed by unelected assemblies of diplomats. A UNPA would allow for all people to become involved in the global decisionmaking process, not just those who speak for the institutions of national government.
  • Separation of powers. As Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., points out in The Case for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, globalization has tended to increase the power of the executive branch while marginalizing the legislative branch; for instance, U.S. Presidents since George H. W. Bush have been given fast track authority to negotiate trade agreements, subject to a "yea or nay" scrutiny by the U.S. Congress on the negotiated deal. A UNPA would provide for UN oversight by a parliamentary body that would be independent of member nations' executive branches[2].
  • Giving populous states greater influence. The one state, one vote rule of the UN General Assembly gives small states a disproportionate amount of influence over the UN system. In Revitalizing the United Nations: Reform through Weighted Voting, University of Minnesota professor emeritus Joseph E. Schwartzberg notes, "The sixty-four least populous members – enough to block a two-thirds majority vote – comprise less than one percent of the world's total population! And, in theory, the 127 least populous members, accounting for barely eight percent of humanity, are enough to provide the two-thirds majority needed to pass a substantive resolution"[3]. Most schemes for a UNPA involve a voting system that takes population into account.

World federalists often point out that a union of peoples, rather than governments, is suggested by the opening words of the Preamble to the United Nations Charter, "We the peoples . . ." According to the Committee for a Democratic UN, "The UNPA concept is the a first step towards a democratic world parliament"[4].

[edit] Implementations

[edit] Basic options

There are five options for creating a U.N. Parliamentary Assembly, according to various assessments:

  1. Amend the UN Charter. This is difficult because it requires ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent members of the Security Council. There have been only five amendments to the UN Charter since 1945. Louis Sohn and Grenville Clark, in their 1958 book World Peace Through World Law, proposed establishing a UN Parliamentary Assembly through this method.
  2. Establish the UNPA as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly has authority to do this under Article 22 of the UN Charter, but using this method would drastically diminish the UNPA’s autonomy and independence. Also, the General Assembly tends to be resistant to change; most proposed reforms die in committee. On the other hand, it would be the most effective way to get the assembly started. Erskine Childers and Brian Urquhart endorsed this approach in their 1994 book, Renewing the United Nations System. The Committee for a Democratic UN also recommended the establishment of UNPA by Article 22 or by transformation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in its report, Developing International Democracy[5].
  3. Create the UNPA as a nongovernmental organization. This would have the advantage of not requiring the cooperation of national governments; however, its legitimacy would probably be highly questionable.
  4. Establish the UNPA through a stand alone treaty. This would have the advantage that 20 or 30 countries could establish a UNPA, and it could expand as more countries ratified the treaty. This is the method by which most international bodies, such the World Health Organization, International Labour Organization, and International Criminal Court, were founded. The way to get started presumably would be to hold a conference of plenipotentiaries to draft the treaty; then the ratification process would begin. Strauss describes this is as the most promising option[6], while the Committee for a Democratic UN does not recommend so: "It would imply a diplomatic tour de force". It is also being argued, that if the assembly is set up through a stand alone treaty, it would hardly be a "United Nations" Parliamentary Assembly, but eventually an independent body not necessarily linked to the UN.
  5. Transform the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This would mean to reform the IPU in a way, that it is capable to fulfill the aims of an UNPA.

[edit] Details

[edit] Direct election vs. appointment by national parliaments

A UNPA might begin as an Inter-Parliamentary Institution – an assembly of parliamentarians from their respective countries' legislatures – and then transition to a directly-elected body. This would be similar to the evolution of the European Parliament. Beginning with the European Parliamentary Assembly's founding in 1958, MEPs were appointed by each of the Member States' national parliaments; in 1979, direct election was instituted[7].

Sen. Douglas Roche, O.C., in The Case for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, analyzes the tradeoffs between the two choices. A UNPA based on existing parliamentarians may be easier to establish, because it avoids several hurdles, such as decisions on electoral cycles, a universally acceptable electoral body, legitimacy of elections, and so on. Roche writes that "a body comprising national parliamentarians has the 'stamp of approval' built-in. National parliamentarians can claim electoral legitimacy in their own right. Admittedly, the credibility of domestic franchised can be called into question, but the trend toward democracy has been strengthening rapidly." National parliamentarians also generally have staff and money, which could ease the funding issues associated with forming a new world parliamentary assembly. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has expressed support for this idea[8].

Roche points out that delegates to a directly-elected UNPA, on the other hand, would have more time available to devote to the global assembly. The body would theoretically be free to conduct business on a full-time basis. Democratic elections of UNPA delegates could also draw the attention of UN opponents to running for UNPA seats or backing candidates, rather than other methods of controlling the world body such as withholding of funds or withdrawal from the United Nations.

[edit] Bicameral vs. unicameral

Some proposals for a UNPA call for a unicameral assembly representing people in proportion to their numbers. In his essay, Overcoming Practical Difficulties in Creating a World Parliamentary Assembly, Joseph E. Schwartzberg explains[9]:

Although based on the model of the United States, some would argue for establishing a bicameral assembly, with two popularly elected houses, one representing people in proportion to their numbers and the other equally representing nation states, the disparities in populations among members of the UN are so much greater than those of units represented in any national legislature as to make a second house analogous to the US Senate an impractical recommendation. To comprehend this point, note that California, the most populous state in the United States, has 69 times the population of Wyoming the least populous state, whereas China, the most populous member of the UN, has more than 100,000 times the population of Nauru or Tuvalu, the two least populous members (each with barely more 10,000 inhabitants). While California has 52 seats in the House of Representatives, compared to Wyoming’s one, both have two seats in the Senate. But who would argue that Nauru should have as much power in one chamber of a bicameral assembly as China?

[edit] Apportionment of votes

System Brazil Indonesia United States India China
Schwartzberg's weighted voting 1.906% 1.383% 9.065% 5.960% 7.672%
Provisional People's Assembly method 2.222% 1.709%* 6.154% 5.641% 3.248%**
One man, one vote 2.887% 3.754% 4.611% 16.758% 20.265%
Penrose method 1.891% 2.157% 2.390% 4.557% 5.011%
One state, one vote 0.524% 0.524% 0.524% 0.524% 0.524%
*Due to "Partially free" status. **Due to "Not free" status

There are a number of proposals for apportionment of votes among member nations, including:

  • Schwartzberg's weighted voting formula, taking into account population (the democratic/demographic principle), contribution to the UN budget (the economic principle), and share of the total membership. To determine the weighted vote of any country, one must add its P (that nation's percentage of the total population of all UN members) plus its C (that nation's percentage of the total contributions to the UN budget) plus its M (that nation's percentage of the total UN membership, which of course would be the same for all members) and then divide that sum by 3 to get the average.
  • The Provisional People's Assembly's methodology, which gives each nation Population Seats based on a calculation which combines the Penrose method, Economic Seats equal to its portion of the world's total gross domestic product, and classification as Free, Partially Free, or Unfree by Freedom House[10].
  • One man, one vote, in which each country's number of votes is directly proportional to its population. This would be similar to how U.S. states are represented in the United States House of Representatives. In The Future of Sovereignty - Rethinking a Key Concept of International Relations, Hasenclever et al sum up the advantages and disadvantages of this system: "In a strict meaning of democracy based on individuals as subjects, every person's vote would have to have exactly the same weight. None of the known proposals, however, supports such a strict interpretation, because the inequality among the states' voting powers would be extreme with only four countries - China, India, the United States and the former USSR - disposing of an absolute majority"[11].
  • The Penrose method, which takes the square root of the millions of inhabitants in each country.

[edit] Election standards

UN member nations have a variety of different electoral systems, many of which are dominated by one or two parties. UNPA supporters point to the European Parliament as an example of how a set of common electoral standards can ensure fairness. Europarl has adopted certain minimum requirements, such as proportional representation, that each member country must abide by in order to be represented[12].

Schwartzberg proposes a professional election commission "to ensure that assembly elections are carried out, to the maximum extent, on a level playing field". Under Schwartzberg's proposal, the commission would have several powers, including the authority to establish rules of fairness, determine in advance whether fairness criteria were being met, and foreclose polling where those criteria were not met. He proposes several criteria that an election must meet in order to be considered valid, such as minimum participation rates that initially could be set as low as 20%, and gradually increased.

[edit] History

In 1945, a people's world assembly was proposed by British politician Ernest Bevin, who said in the British House of Commons that "There should be a study of a house directly elected by the people of the world to whom the nations are accountable"[13].

In Spring 1993, the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade presented a report stating, "By way of building the public and political constituency for the United Nations, the Committee recommends that Canada support the development of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly"[14].

On February 8, 2005, on initiative of the Committee for a Democratic UN, 108 Swiss Parliamentarians signed an open letter to the Secretary-General calling for the establishment of just such a body[15].

On May 14, 2005, the Congress of the Liberal International issued a resolution stating that "the Liberal International calls on the member states of the United Nations to enter into deliberations on the establishment of a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations"[16].

On June 9, 2005, the European Parliament issued a resolution that contained this item[17]:

36. Calls for the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) within the UN System, which would increase the democratic profile and internal democratic process of the organisation and allow world civil society to be directly associated in the decision-making process; states that the Parliamentary Assembly should be vested with genuine rights of information, participation and control, and should be able to adopt recommendations directed at the UN General Assembly; [...]

[edit] Support and opposition

[edit] Support

Some organizations supporting the creation of a UNPA are:

[edit] Opposition

UNA-USA's executive director of policy studies, Jeffrey Laurenti, wrote an article, An Idea Whose Time Has Not Come, arguing that there were important unresolved issues of inclusivity, authority, and efficiency[25]. UNA-USA members also criticized the idea at their June 26-28, 2003 national forum on the United Nations, whose report noted:

Critical comments included the following: A global parliamentary assembly couldn't have much power or it would compete with nations and be shut down. On the other hand, if it didn't wield some power, political leaders would ignore it. Who would vote? Would there be voter interest? In the U.S., for instance, there is poor voter turnout for local and national elections, so what possible interest would there be in international elections? If the global parliament were to compete with the U.N. for funds and national interests, it might undercut its own best intentions. Wouldn't it be far better to work on revitalizing and reforming the international body that we have here today, the United Nations?

According to the World Federalist Canada Briefing Paper No. 30, "Experience has shown that civil servants and diplomats working in national foreign ministries are less likely to support or see the need for a UNPA. They view the UN as a forum for discussion among sovereign states; whatever action the UN takes is a result of bargaining and compromise among member states"[26].

[edit] See also

[edit] References

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly_390b.html"
In other languages