DOCSLIB.ORG

US and French Perspectives on Global Governance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US and French Perspectives on Global Governance FROM DIFFERENCES TO DIALOGUE: U.S. & FRENCH VIEWS ON GLOBAL GOVERNANCE For the Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer pour le Progrès de l’Homme Priyanka Bhalla Catarina Fabiansson Maria Gonzalez Solis Berthilde Goupy Corinna Jentzsch Irene Menendez Gonzalez Maurice Nsabimana Carole Vereerstraeten From Difference to Dialogue: US and French Perspectives on Global Governance Interim report, final report to be presented in June 2005 Contents Preface: Why Global Governance Matters: US and French Perspectives .................. 2 I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 3 II. Our Client: The Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind........................................................................................................................ 6 III. Our Project: A joint Columbia University-Institut d’Etudes Politiques (Sciences-Po) Integrated Team Project: ......................................................................... 7 Project Objectives........................................................................................................... 7 Deliverables of Project.................................................................................................... 7 Project Methodology....................................................................................................... 8 Challenges....................................................................................................................... 9 IV. LAYING THE GROUNDWORK........................................................................... 12 Alternative Perspectives on Global Governance .......................................................... 12 US & French Views...................................................................................................... 16 Identifying Policymakers (DC) – Practitioners – Academics....................................... 17 US Foreign Policy Centered vs. International Organizations centered aka "Condi vs. Kofi".............................................................................................................................. 18 V. CORE ISSUES ........................................................................................................... 19 Sovereign States............................................................................................................ 19 American Exceptionalism............................................................................................. 21 International Law, ICJ, ICC.......................................................................................... 23 Security ......................................................................................................................... 26 Economic Governance.................................................................................................. 28 VI. THE MISSING LINK(s).......................................................................................... 31 Democratic Deficits of Global Governance.................................................................. 31 Civil Society................................................................................................................ 344 The Generational Gap............................................................................................... 3838 VII. IDEAS FOR REFORM .......................................................................................... 40 American UN support and the High Level Panel Report ............................................. 40 Regionalism .................................................................................................................. 43 VIII. Conclusion The Need for Dialogue: Team Recommendations........................................................ 46 ANNEX ............................................................................................................................ 48 Executive Summary of UN High Level Panel Report………………………………...49 Framework for the different fiches..……………………………………………………...….57 Fiches: Sample Fiche Document; Sample Fiche Analyse and, Fiche Debat Outline... 58 Sample Questionnaire for Interviews.…………………………………………………66 Working Bibliography on Global Governance………………………………………..68 Joint Biographical Sketches of Interviewees.………………………………………....76 Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………....88 1 From Difference to Dialogue: US and French Perspectives on Global Governance Preface: Why Global Governance Matters: US and French Perspectives In a world, where multilateralism and cooperation are becoming an increasing necessity, the definition of who holds power and who has the capacity to engage on a global level is changing at a rapid pace; non-state actors are gaining more significance; states are increasingly interacting with multiple stakeholders and the responsibility to protect is a burning issue in the collective security arena. Why is Europe, in this new world, at the vanguard of global governance, with the creation of the European Union? Why is the US that is well known for creating the blueprint of the League of Nations and mistrusting its own government, so protective about its sovereignty? The need to answer the above mentioned questions; the growing international sentiment that international institutions such as the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and United Nations (UN) need to be reformed; the publication of the UN High Level Panel Report (HLPR); increasing interdependence among countries; a need for increased collective action, not just in areas of security, but health, the environment, etc. motivated the Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation to commence this project. In addition, the current American political climate has allowed for the transatlantic rift between the US and France to deepen. Being two major, international actors, it is important to foster dialogue between the two countries, in order to gain more international cooperation and Is there a need to study global consensus on global collective action. governance: “Sadly, the answer is yes… The costs to the United States reduced constitutional autonomy, impaired popular sovereignty, reduction of our international power, and limitations on our domestic and foreign policy options and solutions - are far too great…” John Bolton, 2000 The research has been interesting; highlighting, as it did, the transatlantic divide between European and American Policy circles in regards to global governance and multilateralism. In addition, we also learned about the domestic divide within the United States between those who wish to centre their opinions on global governance within the framework of US foreign policy, and those who are more centrally focused on the international organizations framework. 2 From Difference to Dialogue: US and French Perspectives on Global Governance I. Executive Summary As part of the Applied Workshop in International Development in the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University, a joint, integrated SIPA- Institut des Etudes Science Politiques team was appointed by the Swiss Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation to conduct an eight-month long investigation on American and French perspectives towards global governance and its reform. Starting in November 2004, the SIPA sub-team conducted two principal activities: (1) numerous interviews with American policy makers, practitioners and academics in New York City and Washington DC; and (2) a literature review. After reviewing many books and articles, the SIPA sub-team wrote a number of book reviews, op-eds and debate papers on topics connected to global governance, e.g. “the impact of trade liberalization on economic governance.” The Science Po sub-team commenced its part of the integrated project in February 2005 and is engaging in similar activities in France. This report includes primary findings by the SIPA sub-team with preliminary additions by the Sciences-Po sub-team. Our main findings are as follows: • Our principal finding is that there are not as many differences between the US and France on global governance as we assumed at the beginning of this project. After comparing interview and literature review findings, we realized the following: (1) Neither the US nor France has one, comprehensive definition for global governance. In both countries, global governance remains a vague, often hard to define, area of scholarship and political action. Similarly, there is not one US or French perspective on global governance, but rather multiple perspectives. For example, in the US, many citizens hold dual nationalities or are recent immigrants to the country, however, they too, hold an “American” perspective; (2) Both the US and France (within the EU context) have a tradition of being both internationally engaged, when convenient, or being isolationist, when convenient (American and French exceptionalism?). Therefore, there are factions who uphold and guard national sovereignty (John Bolton and Moreau DeFarges) and there are factions who fully support international organizations (League of Nations blueprint and European idea of “common good needs to be governed collectively.”) There are additional points of commonality in areas of civil society, security and economic governance, which have been further described in the report. • Other primary findings have been divided into the following sections: (1) Laying the Groundwork; (2) Core Issues; (3)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argentina's Deal with the IMF: Will "Expansionary Austerity" Work?
    CEPR CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH Argentina's Deal with the IMF: Will "Expansionary Austerity" Work? By Mark Weisbrot and Lara Merling* December 2018 Center for Economic and Policy Research 1611 Connecticut Ave. NW tel: 202–293–5380 Suite 400 fax: 202–588–1356 Washington, DC 20009 www.cepr.net * Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). Lara Merling is a Research Associate at CEPR. Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Debt Sustainability and the IMF Program ................................................................................................... 10 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 References ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Acknowledgements The authors thank Joe Sammut, Jake Johnston, and Matt Templeton for research assistance, and Dan Beeton and Rebecca Watts for editorial assistance. Executive Summary Since July of this year, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has disbursed more than $20 billion of a $56.3 billion loan package
    [Show full text]
  • World Premiere
    World Premiere FILMOGRAPHY A Message from Oliver Stone has directed: “W.” (‘08), “World Trade Center” (‘06), “Alexander” (‘04), “Any Given Sunday” (‘99), “U–Turn” (‘97), “Nixon” (‘95), “Natural Born Killers” (‘94), Oliver Stone “Heaven and Earth” (‘93), “JFK” (‘91), “The Doors” (‘91), “Born On The Fourth Of July” (‘89), I’ve been fortunate to be able “Talk Radio” (‘88), “Wall Street” (‘87), “Platoon” (‘86), “Salvador” (‘86), “The Hand” (‘81) to make several films about North and “Seizure” (‘73). He’s written or co–written all of the above, with the exception of America’s neglected “backyard” “U–Turn”, “World Trade Center” and “W.”. –– Central and South America. He’s also written or co–written: “Midnight Express” (‘78), “Scarface” (‘83), The low budget, independently “Conan The Barbarian” (‘82), “Year Of The Dragon” (‘85), “Evita” (‘96), and shot SALVADOR, about the U.S. “8 Million Ways To Die” (’86). involvement with the death squads of El Salvador, and starring James He’s directed 3 documentaries –– “Looking for Fidel” (‘04), “Comandante” (‘03), Woods in an Oscar–nominated “Persona Non Grata” (‘03). performance, was released in 1986; this was followed by COMANDANTE He’s produced or co–produced: “The People vs. Larry Flynt” (‘96), in 2003, and LOOKING FOR FIDEL in “The Joy Luck Club” (‘93), “Reversal of Fortune” (‘90), “Savior” (‘98), 2004, both of these documentaries “Freeway” (‘96),“South Central” (‘98), “Zebrahead” (‘92), “Blue Steel” (‘90), exploring Fidel Castro in one–on–one and the ABC mini–series “Wild Palms” (‘93). An Emmy was given to him and his interviews. Each of these films has struggled to be distributed in North America.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution of Bolivia's Most Important Natural Resources And
    Issue Brief • July 2008 The Distribution of Bolivia’s Most Important Natural Resources and the Autonomy Conflicts BY MARK WEISBROT AND LUIS SANDOVAL * Over the last year, there has been an escalation in the political battles between the government of President Evo Morales and a conservative opposition, based primarily in the prefectures, or provinces. The opposition groups have rallied around various issues but have recently begun to focus on "autonomy." Some of the details of this autonomy are legally complex and ambiguous, and they vary among the provinces whose governments are demanding autonomy. Since May of this year, four prefectures – Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Tarija, which are often referred to as the "Media Luna" 1 – have held referenda, which were ruled illegal by the national judiciary, 2 in which a majority of those voting voted in favor of autonomy statutes. While there are a number of political and ideological aspects to this conflict, this paper focuses on one of the most important underlying sources of the dispute: the distribution of Bolivia's most important natural resources. For reasons described below, these are arable land and hydrocarbons. This paper shows that the ownership and distribution of these key resources are at the center of the current conflict. Furthermore, it appears that reform of this ownership and distribution may be necessary for the government to deliver on its political promise to improve the living standards of the country's poor majority, who are also disproportionately indigenous. According to the most recent data, Bolivia has a poverty rate of 60 percent. The number of people in extreme poverty is about 38 percent (UDAPE, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Katherine Cooney | (212) 726-6111 or [email protected] "Weisbrot reveals the pernicious effects of the neoliberal assault on the world's population, from wealthy and developed Europe to the global south, and exposes the dominant political-economic doctrines, rooted in a harsh attack on democracy and undermining of social policies that benefit the vast majority." -- Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus), MIT FAILED What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy Mark Weisbrot Oxford University Press | $24.95 | Hardcover | October 01, 2015 | 312 Pages | 9780195170184 "The International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and neoliberal economics may have failed, but Mark Weisbrot has not. His demolition job on the economic policies that have led to misery for millions is comprehensive, long overdue and a resounding success." -- Larry Elliot, Economics Editor, The Guardian Why did the Eurozone end up with an unemployment rate more than twice than that of the United States and six years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers? Was crisis in the Eurozone inevitable? What caused the prolonged economic failure experienced by the majority of the world's low- and middle-income countries at the end of the 20th century? In FAILED: What the “Experts” Got Wrong about the Global Economy, Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC, analyzes and ties together some of the most important economic developments of recent years, with the common thread that they have been widely misunderstood and in some cases almost completely ignored. Weisbrot argues that the European authorities’ political agenda, which included shrinking the welfare state, reducing health care, pension, and other social spending, and reducing the bargaining power of labor, played a very important role in prolonging the Eurozone’s financial crisis and its lapse into additional years of recession and mass unemployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Weisbrot Most Recent Work Is Social Security: the Phony Crisis
    I Mark W elsbrot Page 1 of 2 Mark Weisbrot Mark Weisbrot received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan, with specialization in international economics and political economy. He is author of “Globalization for Whom?” (Vol. 3 1, #3, 1998 Cornell International Law Journal) and co-authored “Writing the ConstitNtion of-3 Single Global Economy : A Concise Guide to the MA1 (Multilateral Agreement on Investment)“, (Washington, D.C. : Preamble Center,1997). He was a consultant to the Government of Haiti during the presidency of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. His most recent work is Social Security: The Phony Crisis, co-authored with Dean Baker (1999, University of Chicago Press). He is currently Research Director at the Preamble Center, and a research associate with the Economic F’glicy_!Is&tgt_e, both in Washington, D.C. His opinion p&es have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, and many other newspapers throughout the country. He has appeared on numerous television networks including CNN, PBS’ Nightly Business Report, Fox News, and a variety of other talk shows. RECENT PUBLICATIONS: “Globalization for Whom?” (Vol. 3 1, #3, 1998 Cornell International Law Journal) “Recent Experiences with International Financial Markets: Lessons for the Free Trade Area of the Americas,” with Neil Watkins, (Washington, D.C.: Preamble Center/CIEL, 1999) Social Security: The Phony Crisis, with Dean Baker (1999, University of Chicago Press) “The Impact of the MAI on Employment,Gro.~~l,ld lnconle r)i_~sibblion” (Washington, D.C. : Preamble Center, 1997) “Writing the Constitution of a Single Global Economy : A Concise Guide to the MAY, with Michelle Sforza and Scott Nova (Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • C-SPAN's Coverage of Think Tanks
    Issue Brief • December 2007 Tilting Rightward: C-SPAN’s Coverage of Think Tanks BY JUAN ANTONIO MONTECINO AND MARK WEISBROT * This study’s main finding is that C-SPAN coverage of think tanks overwhelmingly favors conservative think tanks while left-of-center think tanks are under- represented. In 2006, conservative think tanks received 43.76 percent of total think tank coverage. Conservative/ libertarian and centrist think tanks received 6.94 percent and 31.76 percent respectively. Center-left and progressive think tanks, on the other hand, only received 12.73 percent and 4.86 percent respectively. Thus, the combined conservative and conservative/libertarian think tanks got an absolute majority of 50.7 percent representation on C-SPAN. Everything left of center got only 17.59 percent, just one third of the coverage received by the Right. C-SPAN’s coverage of think tanks suggests it has failed to fulfill its mission to provide “a balanced presentation of points of view.” A review of recent polls also suggests that C-SPAN’s coverage of think tanks is not only off-balance in absolute numerical terms but also relative to public opinion in a wide range of political issues. According to its mission statement, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network (C- SPAN) was created to provide its audience with “a balanced presentation of points of view” concerning public policy. 1 However, a look at its coverage of the country’s top think tanks in 2006 suggests that it failed to achieve this goal. A survey of C-SPAN coverage of public events, interviews, panels and speeches featuring the country’s top think tanks in 2006 reveals a strong imbalance towards think tanks that represent conservative points of view, an imbalance that— according to recent polling data—is at odds with the opinions of most Americans on a wide range of policy issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Article the Responsibility to Protect at 15
    Review article The Responsibility to Protect at 15 RAMESH THAKUR Anniversaries are occasions to take stock: reflect on progress, celebrate successes, acknowledge setbacks and outline a vision and roadmap for a better future. This year marks the fifteenth anniversary of the publication of the landmark report1 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) that first introduced the innovative principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Within four years, R2P was endorsed unanimously at a United Nations summit of world leaders as the central organizing principle for responding to mass atrocity crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. The ‘original’ documents comprise the initial report of the international commission, its supporting supplementary volume, the 2005 UN summit’s Outcome Document which adopted R2P as official UN policy,2 the special reports of the secretary-general (SG) issued annually since 2009, the debates in the General Assembly around his annual reports,3 resolutions adopted by the Security Council and statements issued by its president, and statements and speeches by the SG and his special advisers on R2P and genocide prevention. To this we might add the series of speeches and reports by Kofi Annan from his time as SG.4 In the secondary literature, it is worth highlighting the central role of Global Responsi- bility to Protect (GR2P), a journal dedicated to this topic. Occasionally special issues of other journals have focused on R2P, for example Ethics & International Affairs 25: 3 (2011). ICISS co-chair Gareth Evans and Commissioner Ramesh Thakur have provided their accounts,5 and ICISS research director Tom Weiss has written an elegant account of R2P in the longer and broader context of humanitarian intervention.6 Edward Luck, the SG’s first special adviser on R2P, has written several accounts of the development and evolution of R2P during his term in 1 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Norm Robustness and the Responsibility to Protect
    Journal of Global Security Studies, 4(1), 2019, 53–72 doi: 10.1093/jogss/ogy045 Research Article Norm Robustness and the Responsibility to Protect Jennifer M. Welsh Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jogss/article/4/1/53/5347912 by guest on 29 September 2021 McGill University Abstract This article begins by critically assessing some of the current measures used to evaluate the status and impact of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). It then lays the groundwork for a deeper examina- tion of RtoP’s strength by specifying what kind of norm it is, and what it can reasonably be expected to do. The third section engages Zimmerman and Deitelhoff’s framework on norm robustness and contestation by positing two arguments. First, the past decade of diplomatic engagement and policy development has brought about greater consensus on RtoP’s core elements, and thus enhanced its validity; however, this process has also dampened many of RtoP’s original cosmopolitan aspirations. Second, persistent applicatory contestation about RtoP’s so-called third pillar is revealing deeper con- cerns about the norm’s justification – thereby leading some actors to avoid framing situations with RtoP terminology. I use two cases to address the broader theoretical questions raised about whether and how language matters in assessing norm robustness: the international community’s response to the deepening political violence in Burundi in 2015, and the evolution of the international community’s response to the war in Syria (2011–17). While these cases illustrate changing perceptions of the politi- cal utility of RtoP language, concrete engagement by the international community, particularly in the Burundi case, indicates that RtoP’s validity remains intact.
    [Show full text]
  • ASU Aff V1.Pdf
    We affirm. Our sole contention is Ending Economic Warfare. Chengu ‘19 of Harvard writes that prior to the imposition of American sanctions, Venezuelan poverty and inequality were on the decline. Rodriguez ‘18 of Torino Economics warrants that while falling global oil prices initially caused Venezuela’s decline, the continued collapse is due to sanctions that slash imports and lines of credit. Indeed, Curcio ‘17 of University of Bolivar explains that Venezuela’s economic decline isn’t due to domestic factors, but American pressure intended to overthrow the Venezuelan government. In fact, Vyas ‘19 of the Wall Street Journal writes that Venezuelan economic reforms created an uptick in their economy despite US sanctions. Thus, Weisbrot ‘17 of the Nation concludes that Venezuela could easily recover from their economic crisis with the removal of Trump’s sanctions. These sanctions doom Venezuela’s economy in two ways. First, is a Debt Disaster. Business Insider ‘19 explains that Venezuela’s debt doubled last decade, skyrocketing to financially unhealthy levels. However, Weisbrot ‘17 of The Nation finds that in 2016, Venezuela was on the brink of restructuring and solving their debt problem, until Trump’s sanctions cut Venezuela off from needed international finance. Rodriguez ‘18 of Foreign Policy continues that, without credit, Venezuelan imports have dropped 31 percent, as the government uses their available capital to pay off their debt rather than buy imports. If sanctions aren’t removed soon, Weisbrot warns they will cause Venezuela to default on their debt, unraveling their markets and destroying any chance for recovery. Fortunately, without sanctions, Venezuela will be able to restructure their debt.
    [Show full text]
  • International Security, Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect
    International Security, Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect Remarks delivered by Dr. Simon Adams in Moscow, Russia on 30 October 2013 at a conference on “State Sovereignty and the Concept of ‘Responsibility to Protect’: The Evolution of the International Situation and Russia's Interests.” Hosted by the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. I want to thank the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the opportunity to participate in this historic event – the first conference on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to be hosted by your government. I want to digress slightly from my suggested topic and start, if I could, by addressing this vexed issue of sovereignty which has gripped our deliberations so far this morning. Sovereignty has never been absolute and that is truer now than at any time since the Treaty of Westphalia. But that is not because R2P has undermined it. It is because the problems of the twenty-first century are quantitatively and qualitatively different from those of previous centuries. Climate change, transnational terrorism, AIDS, mass atrocities, poverty and piracy – these issues are what former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described as “problems without passports.” They require fresh thinking and global partnership. Mass atrocities, in particular, are a threat to all humans as humans. That’s why we define them – politically and legally – as crimes against humanity. That’s why we punish them as an affront not just to their victims, but to all of us as human beings. That’s why they constitute a threat to both international security and human rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Memory Symposium | June 2-5, 2019 Gettysburg College
    ! Historical Memory Symposium | June 2-5, 2019 Gettysburg College | Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, USA Sunday, June 2nd 6 pm Welcome dinner at the Gettysburg Hotel Monday, June 3rd 9 am Opening Remarks & Introductions | All seminars held in Science Center 200 9:30-10:30 am Monumental Commemorations Julian Bonder, architect; Roger Williams College Exploring the role of monuments, parks and museums in preserving and celebrating historic events and in shaping collective memory 11 am-3 pm Guided Visit to Gettysburg Battlefield Led by Peter Carmichael and Jill Titus, Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College 3 pm-5:30 pm Gettysburg Museum and Visitors’ Center Tuesday, June 4th 9-10:15 am Memory vis-à-vis Recent Events in the United States and Central America Stephen Kinzer, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University Location: Science Center 200 10:30-11:45 am Historical Memory Research I: SPAIN Brief presentations by faculty and students about their research focused on historical and collective memory, with a focus on methodologies. Juanjo Romero, Resident Director, CASA Barcelona Ava Rosenberg, Returning student, CASA Spain Maria Luisa Guardiola, Professor, Swarthmore 12-1 pm Lunch 1:15-2:15 pm Historical Memory Research II: CUBA Brief presentations by faculty and students about their research focused on historical and collective memory, with a focus on methodologies. Somi Jun, Returning student, CASA Cuba Rainer Schultz, Resident Director, CASA Cuba 2:30-4 pm De-Brief and Sharing Project Ideas 5:30-7:30 pm Dinner and closing remarks | Atrium Dining Hall Speaker Bios Julian Bonder Professor of Architecture, Roger Williams University Julian Bonder is a teacher, designer and architect born in New York and raised in Argentina.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Nations Unies
    United Nations NationsUnies Informal Interactive Dialogue of the General Assembly "Early Warning, Assessment, and the Responsibility to Protect" 9 August 2010 Conference Room 4, United Nations Headquarters, New York Program 10:00 – 10:20 Opening Short opening statement by the Acting President of the General Assembly Statement by H.E. Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General 10:20 – 11:15 Informal presentations by panelists Panelists Dr. Edward C. Luck, Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General Dr. Francis M. Deng, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Professor Bertie Ramcharan, First Swiss Chair of Human Rights, Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies; Seventh Chancellor of the University of Guyana; Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ad interim Professor Andrea Bartoli, Director of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University Professor Muna Ndulo, Professor of Law, Director of the Institute for African Development, Cornell University 11:15 – 13:00 Interactive discussion between Member States and panelists 1 Statement by Edward C. Luck Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General Informal Interactive Dialogue on Early Warning, Assessment, and the Responsibility to Protect United Nations General Assembly 9 August 2010 Madame Acting President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Many thanks go to the President of the General Assembly for convening this informal interactive dialogue on early warning, assessment, and the responsibility to protect (RtoP) and to you, Madame Acting President, for so energetically and skillfully chairing it. I have no doubt that our conversation today will underscore the value of the continuing consideration of RtoP by the General Assembly.
    [Show full text]