| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
  |
|
 |
|
  |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
The Secretary-General's Role in Conflict Resolution: Past, Present and Pure Conjecture
Thomas M. Franck1
Full text available: PDF format *
I. Introduction
The Secretary-General wears many hats, most being of his own design. He heads a large, far-flung bureaucracy. He is in loco regis when ceremonial functions must be performed on behalf of the world. But, primarily, in practice he has become the UN's `good officer', performing the mediating and diplomatic functions necessary to resolve conflicts. The world, increasingly, has come to rely on these `good offices': to stop wars before they begin, end them when the belligerents are stymied, and create the confidence-building mechanisms that permit parties to turn from confrontation to cooperation.
While it may be true that only the US can mount an `Operation Desert Storm', and that only the Security Council can authorize collective military action or trade embargoes, and that only the General Assembly can vote the funds that keep the UN's multiple operations in business, it is the Secretary-General, in fact, who has taken most of the initiatives to prevent or end the armed conflicts which threaten peace between and within nations. This is remarkable in itself. There is no nation in which the senior civil servant plays a comparable role; the nearest equivalent probably being the head of the Commission of the European Union. Even that erstwhile bureaucrat, however, does not have quite so many strings to his bow, nor does he deploy his discretionary powers so frequently. The purpose of this essay is to examine how this unique manifestation of power came about and to conjecture as to its future.
For most of the twentieth century, the international system knew of only three ways to settle a dispute: war, diplomacy and (on rare occasions), arbitration. However, the past few decades have seen the system's radical reconfiguration. During this time, a new global process for conflict prevention and conflict resolution has developed and become an essential aspect of the system. Indeed, among the options for dispute settlement, the good offices function of the Secretary-General has emerged as the fastest growing.
The term `good offices' has at its roots the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions.2 Articles 2 and 3 of both instruments stipulate that `before an appeal to arms' States shall `have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers'. Moreover, `friendly Powers' are further authorized to take the initiative `to offer good offices or mediation even during the course of hostilities'.3
Currently, the term refers to the independent political role of the Secretary-General in preventing or mediating conflicts among, and more recently within, States.4 Yet, there is no specific authority for this in the Charter: it is a role which has developed in practice. Nevertheless, when the Secretary-General strives to bring disputing parties to the negotiating table, he now deploys the authority of the international community as a whole, a significant institutional innovation. Although this activity is only exceptionally visible to the public, it nevertheless constitutes one of the most important functions of the United Nations. As former Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar has put it:
No one will ever know how many conflicts have been prevented or limited through contacts which have taken place in the famous glass mansion which can become fairly opaque when necessary.5
Prospects for the good offices function of the Secretary-General are closely connected with prospects for the United Nations Organization itself. The immediate aftermath of the cold war has witnessed a remarkable expansion of UN activities. For example, in the five years after 1988, as many peace-keeping operations were authorized as in the previous forty-three years.6 The Security Council, finally unblocked, has been issuing a steady stream of mandatory `enforcement' resolutions. In this context it is to be expected that the Secretary-General, too, would expand his functions. Such an expansion appears to have been accepted quite explicitly, in 1992, at the first meeting of the Security Council at the level of the heads of State and government. Those leaders formally invited `greater use ... of his good offices'.7
This essay will trace the evolution of the good offices function with an eye toward identifying factors which may play a significant longer-range role in its future development. But, first, it is useful to look at the origins of good offices in the cold war era, when a deadlocked Security Council created a special case - and a particular space - for the Secretary-General to act on his own. Thereafter, we will assess the changed circumstances of a newly reinvigorated Security Council to weigh the effect that this has had on the good offices mission. Finally, we shall try to identify factors likely to shape the future.
* The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is
available at the
Adobe Systems.
1 Professor of Law and Director, Center for International Studies,
New York University School of Law. Some of this article is based on research
undertaken jointly with Dr. Georg Nolte. This is a draft of a chapter of a
forthcoming book.
2 J. Brown Scott (ed.), The Proceedings of the Hague Peace
Conference: Translation of the Official Texts for the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 1899 (1920) 237 and id. (1907) (Vol. 1) (1920)
599 .
3 Ibid., at Article 9 of both the 1899 and 1907 Hague
Conventions.
4 The traditional meaning of the term `good offices' is more
restricted. In UN parlance and practice, however, it has come to cover not only
`mediation', see Handbook on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Between
States, in Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United
Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, GAOR Suppl.
No. 33 (A/46/33), at 61, but also fact-finding missions, see, e.g., UN
Press Release SG/SM/4727/Rev.1, 10 April 1992, at 6 and G.A. Res. 46/59 of 17
January 1992; the word is even used in connection with an operation to oversee
a troop-withdrawal, such as the United Nations Good Offices Mission to
Afghanistan and Pakistan (UNGOMAP), see SC Res. 622 of 31 October 1988, para.
1; the Secretary-General has stressed that this `is a very flexible term as it
may mean very little or very much', Handbook, id. at
62.
5 UN Press Release SG/SM/4124, 20 April 1988, at 7-8.
6 UN Press Release SG/SM/4748, 13 May 1992, at 1-2.
7 UN Doc. S/23500 of 31 January 1992, at 4.
© 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 12:13PM