Multilateralism à la Carte: The Consequences of Unilateral `Pick and Pay'Approaches Allan Gerson Full text available: PDF format * Abstract The 1999 Congressional season, the penultimate of the century, ended on the low note of President Clinton's grudging acquiescence of the terms set by House Republicans for forwarding the bulk of money claimed due by the United Nations. In return, the Clinton Administration agreed not to veto a rider to the UN funding bill which would withhold US funding to women's organizations pushing foreign governments to adopt birth control measures. Lost in the shuffle of domestic politics was the issue of whether the United States in fact owed the United Nations what it claimed, and whether America's efforts at selective withholding indeed constituted a fall from grace, as critics claimed. The legal issues were always far from clear. The UN dues standoff does not represent the hijacking of the American multilateralist vision by isolationist-minded Republicans on Capitol Hill. In fact, the United States has never claimed unwavering loyalty to a literalist interpretation of the principle of `collective financial responsibility' of Article 19 of the UN Charter insofar as that meant acquiescence to the will, no matter how unreasonable, of the UN General Assembly majority on budgetary matters. Here, the legal issues were clouded and subject to a negotiated solution. * The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is available at the Adobe Systems.
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 01:36PM