235
organization, sovereignty is our bedrock and bible - here is someone coming with
ideas which are almost challenging it. So I had to sow the seed and let them digest
it but take the study outside and then bring in the results for them to look at it.”
(Weiss et al. 2005, p. 378). It was not until 2005 and 2009 that states were asked
(within UN processes) to support R2P. This was achieved by consensus with states
first adopting the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document which recognised and
outlined R2P (A/60/L.1 2005). In 2009 Moon released a report on implementation
(UNSG 2009). Following a General Assembly debate, states passed a consensus
resolution reaffirming the 2005 commitment and taking note of the UNSG’s report
(UNGA Res 63/308).
In contrast, the GPE was the exclusive initiative of French lawyers and legal
scholars. Once drafted with the assistance of international legal experts but with a
small final drafting team, it received political support from French President Macron
who announced an intention to “push the Pact through the United Nations General
Assembly.” (Kotzé and French 2018, p. 812). France subsequently hosted a launch
summit in September 2017, which enabled France and supporting states, to promote
what became the UNGA Res 72/277 mandating the OEWG and requiring the gap
report. Analysis of OWEG consultations suggests the GPE’s setback was (in part)
the price paid by external experts not understanding the UN system. Some saw it as
an exclusive initiative that attempted to ‘skip the line’. Furthermore, they did not
spend sufficient time communicating objectives to states and the global public, nor
did they build the necessary alliances (ENB 2019c, p. 11).
4.3 Inclusiveness vs an Elite Eurocentric View
Following Annan’s challenge to the international community, the Canadian government established a fully independent commission (the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty—ICISS), under Australian and Algerian cochairmanship. ICISS membership was geographically, ethnically, politically, professionally and ideologically diverse.
4
Members included former heads of state,
cabinet ministers, long-serving UN officials, military generals, scholars and journalists. Thakur notes; “it is important also to include representatives from the worlds
of practitioners and ideas… Ideas are the key drivers of history and a panel that does
not include them will have a short life.” (Thakur 2019, p. 51). Critically, members
had different ideological starting points, with some pro and others anti-intervention.
Nevertheless, they were able produce a unanimous report that was not merely a collection of clichés and platitudes. (Thakur 2011, p. 33). The ICISS’s final report was
both comprehensive, innovative and well researched (ICISS 2001). However, the
extensive outreach programme that attended its work was of critical importance.
4 Members were from: USA, Russia, Germany, Philippines, South Africa, Canada, Switzerland,
India and Guatemala.
Opportunity Within Failure: Can the Global Pact for the Environment Learn…
Précédent

- 232/260

Suivant