DOCSLIB.ORG

(2020) of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(2020) of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices G/L/1366 G/ADP/27 30 October 2020 (20-7663) Page: 1/26 REPORT (2020) OF THE COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES (ADOPTED 28 OCTOBER 2020) 1 ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES 1. The Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 ("the Agreement") entered into force on 1 January 1995. All Members of the WTO are ipso facto members of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices ("the Committee") established under the Agreement. 2. Observer governments in the General Council of the WTO have Observer status in the Committee. The International Monetary Fund, World Bank and UNCTAD have regular Observer status in the Committee. Pursuant to a decision of the Committee in October 1998, the Organization of African, Caribbean and Pacific States ("OACPS") and the OECD are invited to attend meetings on an ad hoc basis. Requests for Observer status from the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa and the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting are under consideration by Members. 3. This report covers the period 20 November 2019 – 28 October 2020 ("the review period"). During the review period, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee held only one1 regular meeting, on 28 October 2020. 4. As of the beginning of the review period, Ms Lenka ŠUSTROVÁ (Czech Republic) was Chair and Ms Leticia Margarita Ramirez Aguilar (Mexico) was Vice-Chair of the Committee. At the end of its regular meeting in October 2020, the Committee elected Ms Maarit Keitanen (Finland) as Chair and Mr Craig Barrington Douglas (Jamaica) as Vice-Chair. 2 NOTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF ANTI-DUMPING LAWS AND/OR REGULATIONS OF MEMBERS 5. Pursuant to Article 18.5 of the Agreement and a decision of the Committee in February 1995, all Members having new or existing legislation and/or regulations which apply in whole or in part to anti-dumping duty investigations or reviews covered by the Agreement are requested to notify the full and integrated text of such legislation and/or regulations to the Committee. Changes in a Member's legislation and/or regulations are also to be notified. If a Member has no such legislation or regulations, the Member is to inform the Committee of this fact. The Committee also decided that Observer governments should comply with these notification obligations. 1 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the spring meeting of the Committee which was scheduled to be held in the week of 27 April 2020 had to be cancelled. The Chair of the Committee, Ms Lenka ŠUSTROVÁ, sent a communication to this effect to Members on 17 March 2020. The Chair consulted with Members to explore possibilities for conducting work remotely/and or through a written question and answer procedure on at least some of the agenda items that would have been discussed at the spring Regular meeting, and informed Members in a communication dated 13 May 2020 that no consensus had been reached on any of the alternatives proposed. The Chair sent a further communication, regarding the date of the October meeting, to Members on 5 June 2020. The usual document relaying the deadlines for submission of various documentation in conjunction with that meeting was circulated on 22 June 2020 in document G/ADP/W/505. The agenda items that would have been taken up during the spring meeting were carried forward to the October 2020 meeting. The minutes of the October 2020 meeting will be circulated in document G/ADP/M/58. G/L/1366 • G/ADP/27 - 2 - 6. As of 28 October 2020, 86 Members had notified their anti-dumping legislation2, while 34 Members had notified that they had no such legislation. These notifications can be found in document series G/ADP/N/1/…. Seventeen Members had not, as of the end of the review period, made any notification of anti-dumping legislation. Annex A sets out the status of notifications under Article 18.5, and the reference symbol(s) of the document(s) containing each Member's current notification. 7. During the review period, the Committee reviewed new notifications of legislation submitted by the following Members: Argentina; Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Costa Rica; Ghana; LAO, People's Democratic Republic; United Kingdom3; United States and Viet Nam. Pending written questions posed to the legislative notifications of Cameroon remained on the agenda of the meeting. In addition, the Committee continued the review of the legislative notifications of Japan; Kenya; Liberia; and the United Arab Emirates previously reviewed by the Committee. Written questions and answers regarding legislative notifications can be found in document series G/ADP/Q1/…. 3 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS ON ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 16.4 8. With respect to the semi-annual reports for the period 1 July-31 December 2019, as of 28 October 2020, 44 Members4 had notified the Committee of anti-dumping actions taken during this period. Sixteen Members had notified the Committee that they had not taken any anti-dumping actions during this period. Fourteen Members that notified competent authorities and eleven Members that did not notify competent authorities had not submitted a notification in this regard. These semi-annual reports were circulated in document series G/ADP/N/335/…. The status of semi-annual reports for this period is set out in Annex B. Questions raised concerning these reports can be found in the minutes5 of the meeting. 9. With respect to the semi-annual reports for the period 1 January-30 June 2020, as of 28 October 2020, 44 Members6 had notified the Committee of anti-dumping actions taken during this period. Sixteen Members had notified the Committee that they had not taken any anti-dumping actions during this period. Fifteen Members that notified competent authorities and eleven Members that did not notify competent authorities had not submitted a notification in this regard. These semi- annual reports were circulated in document series G/ADP/N/342/…. The status of semi-annual reports for this period is set out in Annex B. Questions raised concerning these reports can be found in the minutes7 of the meeting. 2 The European Union is counted as one (28 member States until 31 January 2020). The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union as of 1 February 2020. The European Union and the United Kingdom have communicated that during the transition period, which ends on 31 December 2020, European Union law, with a few limited exceptions, continues to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom. See WT/LET/1462 and WT/GC/206. Since February 2020, the United Kingdom has separately submitted legislative notifications to the Committee. These notifications, reflected in Annex A on the separate line for the United Kingdom, were made under the sole responsibility of the United Kingdom and are counted in the number of Members that have submitted legislative notifications. 3 The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union as of 1 February 2020. The European Union and the United Kingdom have communicated that during the transition period, which ends on 31 December 2020, European Union law, with a few limited exceptions, continues to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom. See WT/LET/1462 and WT/GC/206. Since February 2020, the United Kingdom has separately submitted legislative notifications to the Committee. These notifications, reflected in Annex A on the separate line for the United Kingdom, were made under the sole responsibility of the United Kingdom and are counted in the number of Members that have submitted legislative notifications. 4 The European Union is counted as one (28 member States). 5 To be circulated in document G/ADP/M/58. 6 The European Union is counted as one (28 member States until 31 January 2020). The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union as of 1 February 2020. The European Union and the United Kingdom have communicated that during the transition period, which ends on 31 December 2020, European Union law, with a few limited exceptions, continues to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom. See WT/LET/1462 and WT/GC/206. Since February 2020, the United Kingdom has separately submitted a semi-annual report. That notification, reflected in Annex B on the separate line for the United Kingdom, was made under the sole responsibility of the United Kingdom and is counted in the number of Members that have submitted semi-annual reports. 7 To be circulated in document G/ADP/M/58. G/L/1366 • G/ADP/27 - 3 - 10. As of 28 October 2020, 51 Members had submitted a one-time notification pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 16.5.8 11. The Chair strongly urged Members that had not submitted reports of actions taken, nil returns or one-time notifications, to submit these notifications 12. The Chair reminded Members' of the Rules' and IT Divisions efforts in cleaning up and redesigning the existing trade remedies databases and in developing a facility that would enable Members to submit their semi-annual reports on-line. The Chair indicated the Secretariat readiness to embark on a soft launch of the new online portal for submission of anti-dumping semi-annual reports and that - following the meeting – the Secretariat would provide a presentation of the prototype and related future arrangements. 13. A table summarizing new anti-dumping actions taken by Members as reported in their semi-annual reports for the period 1 July 2019-30 June 2020 is reproduced in Annex C to this report. 4 REPORTS ON ALL PRELIMINARY OR FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS 14. Pursuant to Article 16.4 of the Agreement, reports of preliminary and final anti-dumping actions during the review period were received from Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Dominican Republic; Egypt; European Union9; India; Israel; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea, Republic of; Kyrgyz Republic; Mexico; Morocco; New Zealand; Pakistan; Philippines; Russian Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom10; United States and Viet Nam as indicated in documents G/ADP/N/336, G/ADP/N/337, G/ADP/N/338, G/ADP/N/339/Rev.1, G/ADP/N/340, G/ADP/N/341, G/ADP/N/343, G/ADP/N/344, G/ADP/N/345, G/ADP/N/346, and G/ADP/N/347.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 8079K See Change Briefing Paper
    CatholicCatholicTheThe ChurchChurch atat thetheUnitedUnited NationsNations Church or ?State? The Catholic It is the world’s smallest “city-state” at 108.7 acres. It houses the infrastructure of the Roman church at the UN: Catholic church: the pope’s palace, St. Peter’s A religion or a state? Basilica, offices and administrative services and libraries and archives.2 Vatican City was created Many questions have been raised about the role in 1929 under a treaty signed between Benito of the Catholic church at the United Nations Mussolini and Pietro Cardinale Gasparri, as a result of its high-profile and controversial secretary of state to Pope Pius XI.The Lateran role at international conferences. Participating Treaty was designed to compensate the pope as a full-fledged state actor in these for the 1870 annexation of the Papal States, conferences, the Holy See often goes against which consisted of 17,218 square miles in the overwhelming consensus of member states central Italy, and to guarantee the “indisputable “The Holy See is and seeks provisions in international documents sovereignty” of the Holy See by granting it a TheThe “See“See Change”Change” that would limit the health and rights of all not a state, but is physical territory.3 According to Archbishop Campaign people, but especially of women. How did the accepted as being Campaign Hyginus Eugene Cardinale, a former Vatican Holy See, the government of the Roman on the same footing Hundreds of organizations and thousands of people diplomat who wrote the authoritative work on Catholic
    [Show full text]
  • 28 March 2020 ADMISSION of OBSERVER ORGANIZATIONS
    FIFTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE IPCC Paris, 24 – 28 March 2020 IPCC-LII/Doc. 4 (24.I.2020) Agenda Item: 9 ENGLISH ONLY ADMISSION OF OBSERVER ORGANIZATIONS (Submitted by the Secretary of the IPCC) IPCC Secretariat c/o WMO • 7bis, Avenue de la Paix • C.P. 2300 • 1211 Geneva 2 • Switzerland telephone : +41 (0) 22 730 8208 / 54 / 84 • fax : +41 (0) 22 730 8025 / 13 • email : [email protected] • www.ipcc.ch ADMISSION OF OBSERVER ORGANIZATIONS Status of IPCC Observer Organizations In compliance with the IPCC Policy and Process for Admitting Observer Organizations (hereafter the “IPCC Observer Policy”) which was adopted at the 25th Session of the IPCC and amended at its 31st and 35th Session, the Panel currently has 161 Observer Organizations. The list of IPCC Observer Organizations is attached as Annex 1, Tables 1 - 4. Annex 1, Table A lists new applications received by the Secretariat from organizations to obtain IPCC observer status. Since the 49th Session of the IPCC (Kyoto, Japan, 8-12 May 2019), the following five organizations have requested IPCC observer status: (1) Sasakawa Peace Foundation (SPF), (2) Dalit Welfare Association (Nepal), (3) Royal Meteorological Society (UK), (4) Institute for Environment and Development Sustainability (IEDS), and (5) the Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia (CAREC). The five organizations are already accredited as observer organization with UNFCCC and therefore in accordance with Rule I.5 of the IPCC Observer Policy, they do not have to submit additional documentation concerning their organization. The four columns on the right of Table A indicate respectively the relevance of the organization’s objectives to IPCC activities, if the organization already has observer status with UNFCCC, WMO or UNEP, the date of first application by letter or e-mail, and the Secretariat’s view on the adequacy of the application with respect to IPCC’s policy on the matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Africa Report, Nr. 110: Somaliland
    SOMALILAND: TIME FOR AFRICAN UNION LEADERSHIP Africa Report N°110 – 23 May 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. SOMALIA, SOMALILAND AND THE AFRICAN UNION..................................... 1 A. SOMALILAND’S APPLICATION ...............................................................................................2 B. CONTESTED SOVEREIGNTY ...................................................................................................2 II. THE INDEPENDENCE CLAIM .................................................................................. 4 A. FROM SEPARATE STATEHOOD TO DYSFUNCTIONAL UNITY ...................................................4 B. DICTATORSHIP, HUMAN RIGHTS AND REBELLION.................................................................5 C. SOMALILAND NATIONALISM: FROM PLATFORM TO IDENTITY ...............................................6 D. CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY ............................................................................................7 E. THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES.................................................................................................8 III. SOMALILAND AND THE AFRICAN UNION........................................................ 10 A. STATEHOOD AND RECOGNITION..........................................................................................10 1. The Montevideo criteria...........................................................................................10 2. The declaratory school.............................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Information Exchange and Observer Status: the World Trade Organisation and Multilateral Environmental Agreements
    Information Exchange and Observer Status: The World Trade Organisation and Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Paragraph 31 (ii) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration Konrad von Moltke Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College, Hanover NH International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg MB Institut pour le développement durable et les relations internationales, Paris EU China Programme for China’s Accession to the WTO Project No. 50.3081.2-001.00 Executive Summary The Doha Ministerial Declaration (DMD) devotes a good deal of attention to environmental issues. Environment and sustainable development are addressed in DMD paragraphs 6, 19, 28, 31, 32, 33, and 51. The institutional dimension is covered in DMD paragraphs 6, 31 (ii), and 51—but only paragraph 31 involves the need for negotiations. There are a range of reasons why the relationship between the World Trade Organization (WTO) and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) cannot be handled in the same manner that information exchange and observer status are handled by the WTO in general. These relate to structural differences in trade and environmental regimes and differences in organizational status between the WTO and MEA secretariats. DMD paragraph 31 (ii) calls for negotiation s on procedures for regular information exchange between MEA Secretariats and the relevant WTO committees, and the criteria for the granting of observer status. This establishes a two-part negotiating agenda: on information exchange—which is presumed to occur—and observer status—which is recognized as desirable, provided it can be based on criteria. Since the establishment of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) at the time of the Marrakesh Conference that concluded the Uruguay Round, these matters have been discussed quite extensively in the CTE.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PROBLEMS of MICRO-STATES in INTERNATIONAL LAW By
    THE PROBLEMS OF MICRO-STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW by CHARNG-VEN CHEN B.A. in law, National Taiwan University, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of laws in the Faculty of Law We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1969 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and Study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Law The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date 30 April 1969 - i - ABSTRACT The problems arising from the emergence of micro- States have recently received a great deal of attention in the international community. These problems can be seen to have two major aspects. One is the question of the future statehood of micro-States in the international community, the other is the potential problems resulting from their participation in international affairs. The object of this paper is to point out the visi• ble problems involved in the process of the participation of micro-States in international affairs in order that possible solutions: can be proposed. In investigating the historical background of these problems, we are aware that the continuing efforts of the United Nations on decolonization are the main stimuli to the birth of micro-States.
    [Show full text]
  • Taiwan in International Organizations: Internationalization of the Taiwan-China Relationship
    ASIA PROGRAMS Taiwan In International Organizations: Internationalization of the Taiwan-China Relationship By Clay E. Hickson Managing Director, Rhôton Hill Group Chairman and President, Maryland-China Business Council May 2003 Taiwan In International Organizations: Internationalization of the Taiwan-China Relationship Since it was replaced in the United Nations by the People’s Republic of China 30 years ago, the Republic of China’s formal presence in international organizations has been greatly restricted, but not completely eliminated. Taiwan maintains membership in several important international organizations, including the International Olympic Committee, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Asian Development Bank, Governmental Advisory Committee of the Internet Cooperation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and, most recently, World Trade Organization (WTO). Yet, Taiwan desires greater participation on the international stage, especially within the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO), and its efforts to promote them are generally met with strong resistance from China. The territory’s seventh attempt to join WHO failed in 2003, and its eleventh attempt to join the United Nations seems doomed to failure. Why does Taiwan persist year after year in what seem to be fruitless endeavors? What does Taiwan hope to gain by these attempts to participate in international organizations? What is the cost of these efforts, and how are they impacting the United States? Strategy A fundamental change in attitude about its participation in international organizations has occurred in Taiwan over the last couple of decades. Even after losing its place in the United Nations, for many years the authorities on Taiwan continued to insist the Republic of China was the legitimate government of China and eventually would be reinstated to its rightful place on the international stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Upholding the World Health Organization. Next Steps for the EU
    NO. 47 OCTOBER 2020 Introduction Upholding the World Health Organization Next Steps for the EU Susan Bergner, Remco van de Pas, Louise van Schaik and Maike Voss Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Union (EU) was neither a strong pro- moter of global health nor a strong supporter of the World Health Organization (WHO). The Global Health Council Conclusions from 2010 were never comprehensively implemented and quickly forgotten. With the pandemic greatly affecting EU member states, the EU is increasingly interested in upholding multilateral cooperation in the global health field. Therefore, the EU should aim for an upgrading of the EU’s status in WHO, the establishment of a global health unit in the European External Action Service (EEAS), and an overhaul of the formal relationship between the European Commission and WHO. The pandemic discloses the discrepancy The Union’s global health policy-making between the EU advocating for global access lacked visibility in recent decades, although to a COVID-19 vaccine while at the same the EU is traditionally a promoter of effec- time safeguarding its own access to it. Its tive multilateralism. With its Council Con- refusal to alter patent laws that serve to clusions on global health, adopted in 2010, protect the commercial and innovation in- the EU committed itself to stronger global terests of pharmaceutical companies based health governance – including support- in EU countries can equally be questioned ing WHO and the United Nations (UN) sys- on grounds of global solidarity. A revamped tem – focusing on Universal Health Cover- global health strategy is needed to over- age, strengthening health systems, as well come such issues and make the EU a reli- as recognising the need for a “Health in All able and capable partner on global health Policies” approach, including in the EU’s that gives WHO a central role.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Status of Palestine
    Legal Status of Palestine By Kavitha Giridhar Since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine has been struggling to gain statehood. After World War I, Palestine, along with several other Arab nations, was placed under British rule. When Britain pulled out of the area, every Arab state was granted independence except Palestine. In 1917, Britain called for a Jewish nation to be created in the land of Palestine. As the region became more troubled by mass immigration and violence, Britain handed the matter over to the United Nations. The United Nations (UN) issued a resolution in which it called for a separate Israeli and Palestinian state. Israel accepted this partition and in 1948 declared its independence. Israel has since been recognized as a state by most other states and international organizations. However, Palestine rejected this partition and, despite its attempts, has still not received statehood status. This article will determine whether Palestine has met the requirements for statehood by answering three legal questions: 1) Has Palestine met the requirements for de facto statehood? 2) Has Palestine achieved de jure statehood? 3) Does Palestine have the right to self-determination? In order for an entity to be considered a state, it must possess the following qualifications as laid out by the 1933 Montevideo Convention: “a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) the capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”1 These qualifications have been used as the basis for statehood by the international community. Palestine argues that it has met these requirements and therefore has achieved de facto statehood.
    [Show full text]
  • Somaliland: Time for African Union Leadership
    SOMALILAND: TIME FOR AFRICAN UNION LEADERSHIP Africa Report N°110 – 23 May 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. SOMALIA, SOMALILAND AND THE AFRICAN UNION..................................... 1 A. SOMALILAND’S APPLICATION ...............................................................................................2 B. CONTESTED SOVEREIGNTY ...................................................................................................2 II. THE INDEPENDENCE CLAIM .................................................................................. 4 A. FROM SEPARATE STATEHOOD TO DYSFUNCTIONAL UNITY ...................................................4 B. DICTATORSHIP, HUMAN RIGHTS AND REBELLION.................................................................5 C. SOMALILAND NATIONALISM: FROM PLATFORM TO IDENTITY ...............................................6 D. CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY ............................................................................................7 E. THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES.................................................................................................8 III. SOMALILAND AND THE AFRICAN UNION........................................................ 10 A. STATEHOOD AND RECOGNITION..........................................................................................10 1. The Montevideo criteria...........................................................................................10 2. The declaratory school.............................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Holy See (Vatican City)
    Holy See (Vatican City) Holy See has observer status at the Council of Europe (COE) and has permanent observer state status at the United Nations (UN), and has human rights obligations at the universal level. Regional: European System Holy See was granted observer status with the Council of Europe on March 7, 1970. As an observer State, it has the opportunity to cooperate with the COE and to accept its guiding principles of democracy, rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. Holy See may send observers to its expert committees and conferences of specialized ministers. Observer States are also allowed to send representatives to observe the regular meetings of the Council's Ministers' Deputies and to appoint permanent observers to the COE. The Holy See has not ratified any regional human rights treaties and is not subject to oversight by the COE human rights mechanisms. United Nations System As a non-member State, Holy See received a standing invitation to participate as an observer in the sessions and the work of the UN General Assembly. It also maintains a permanent observer mission at UN Headquarters. Permanent Observer States have access to most UN meetings and relevant documentation. Holy See has ratified the following UN human rights treaties: . Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) . Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) . International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) As a party to specific universal human rights treaties, Holy See’s policies and practices are monitored by UN treaty bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Holy See at the United Nations: an Obstacle to Women’S Reproductive Health and Rights
    BRIEFING PAPER The Holy See at the United Nations: An Obstacle to Women’s Reproductive Health and Rights The Roman Catholic Church is uniquely positioned to influence international policy- making. It speaks on issues of concern for its religious followers in numerous nations around the world. At the international level, the Roman Catholic Church uses its dis- tinctive position at the United Nations to affect a wide range of global issues, includ- ing international economic development, women’s status, population, and family planning. Although the Roman Catholic Church pursues many admirable strategies towards poverty eradication and economic development, it undermines its own advo- cacy on these issues by taking positions that run counter to the equality and empow- erment of women - one half of the world’s people. This briefing paper calls into ques- tion the legitimacy of the Holy See’s status as a Non-Member State Permanent Observer and illustrates how this status is used to obstruct women’s sexual and repro- ductive health and rights. The Holy See’s status at the UN entitles it to many of the same privileges enjoyed by governments. Yet, the Holy See lacks a traditional citizenry of its own. The Holy See speaks at the UN not as a nation-state addressing the pressing concerns of its cit- izens, but as a religion seeking to exert its version of morality on Catholics and non- Catholics alike. All of the other religions of the world are entitled only to the lim- ited privileges of non-governmental organizations within the UN. The Roman Catholic Church therefore enjoys a unique degree of international political lever- age typically reserved for governments.1 Furthermore, the Holy See’s status sets a precedent for allowing other religions this role within the UN - an institution of global governance that should remain neutral towards religion.
    [Show full text]
  • Title Items-In-Permanent Observers
    UN Secretariat Item Scan - Barcode - Record Title Page 116 Date 12/06/2006 Time 2:11:34PM S-0882-0006-05-00001 Expanded Number S-0882-0006-05-00001 Title items-in-Permanent Observers Date Created 08/09/1967 Record Type Archival Item Container s-0882-0006: Correspondence Files of the Secretary-General: U Thant: with Heads of State, Governments, Permanent Representatives and Observers to the United Nations Print Name of Person Submit Image Signature of Person Submit End of Report United Nations - ARMS DafasefUNARMSDB 1 N S - ^'&~j -N< ATI O N S jV.'fc'\V YORK •j /.T; CJ N y w E wyrj :? K • A c « t £. rr r. The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents his ..; compliments. to the Permanent Representative cf the Ur.icn of ;./• Soviet Socialist Republic £ arid ha"; the honour to refer to the ;• Note Verbaie of II June 19--7 addressed to him by the Permanent •: Mission of the Soviet Union concerning the cuestion cf inclusion : of reference to per^ar-eno observers of i-;on-:^s;r_bcrE in certain •'. - United Nations publications. ' - The Secre1ariat ras frequently no^/^d "thr't "t-h-^^g ^rc ro :' specific provisions relating to permanent observers of Non~ffieird;er£ in the United Nations Charter, in the Headquarters A.f/rceirent v/ith ,'. ••' the United Statec Governin.ent or in General Assenib.lv resolution ' 2fJ7 (ill) of. 3 Decen±cr 1948 concerning Permanent KiGS.iong of •i;. .Menslser States and has consistently held the view that Pcrrr-inent '(. Observers are n^rt cntitled_Jtp jdiplojiiatic privile^eo or irr-iiinitiec; •<.
    [Show full text]