As the UN embarks upon its second half-century, its future is clouded by widespread
skepticism and disillusionment. It is questionable whether the UN as it exists today is
sustainable.
To explore the best feasible model of the UN, the UNU has launched a project entitled
"The United Nations System in the 21st Century." Using a dichotomous analytical
model - the UN as Global Manager and Global Counsel - as a heuristic guide, the project
examines what could be or should be the United Nations in the next century.
Issues facing the UN are being studied in two basic stages: 1) current assessment of
international institutions through theoretical and empirical inquiry, and 2) prospective
design of policies, visions and ideas for the future. The framework for these studies are
based on three different perspectives of the United Nations: 1) as an Actor, 2) as an
Arena, and 3) as a Policy Tool. Research programmes centered on these three models are
structured around five core research groups and five annual issue areas which form the
principal component of the project. The groups look at the following five primary actors
in world affairs: 1) states; 2) non-governmental organizations (NGOs); 3) market forces;
4) regional institutions, and 5) international organizations. The five issue areas which
provide themes for each year on which the core research groups focus their attention, are:
1) peace and security (1996); development (1997); environment (1998); human dignity
(1999), and governance 2000).
There is an annual symposium each year where research outcomes are presented and
critically discussed. Immediately after each symposium, the research agenda for the
following year is set by the project's core group, based on which the research organizers
will develop their annual research plan and organize their research groups. Six months
later, the UNU convenes the Interaction Meeting at which the research organizers present
their progress report to an assembly of UN experts. both scholars and practitioners, in
order to get feedback. Eventually, the five groups' research outcomes are reported to the
public at the annual symposium and critically discussed at the post-symposium review
meeting. The research papers presented at the symposium are then revised and published in
the form of an annual report, as well as summarized in UN21 Occasional Papers.
The United Nations University's 20th anniversary symposium on the United Nations System in the 21st Century provided a forum to set the direction of the UNU's research activities within the framework of the newly launched five-year project. At the symposium UN scholars and practitioners gathered to exchange and discuss views on the role of the United Nations in the coming century. Two heuristic models -- the UN as Global Manager and Global Counsel -- were offered as a point of departure for analytical purposes. Six panels were organized to address the following areas: (1) international security; (2) sustainable development; (3) states and sovereignty; (4) global citizenship; (5) regionalism; and (6) international organizations. The following attempts to provide a synthesis of some of the major themes and ideas raised during the course of the symposium.
Introduction
One of the greatest challenges facing the United Nations is to address the critical task of reinventing the organization to make it a credible force in the 21st century. The pressing issues of today and for the future, chief among them the revival of nationalism, ethnic cleansing, genocide, unprecedented humanitarian crises, gross violations of human rights, the degradation of the environment, poverty, social inequalities, the spread of HIV/AIDS, drug trafficking, international terrorism, population growth, increasing levels of unemployment, and economic migration from the South to the North, demand a strong and effective United Nations, adapted to meet its ever-widening agenda.
It is therefore necessary to look ahead for indications of significant changes in the political, social and economic environments and to assess, as well in advance as possible, what action is needed if the UN is to deal successfully either with resultant crises or resultant opportunities. What new challenges are likely to emerge in the years ahead? What problems are likely to persist? What reforms can and should be undertaken to enable the UN to effectively respond to current and future challenges? These are just a few of the many complex questions that form the rich research agenda of the United Nations system in the 21st century.
Rethinking International Security
In a period spanning some forty years, from the first mission that was established in 1948 to supervise the truce in Palestine (UNTSO), to just before the launching of the first major multidimensional peacekeeping operation in Namibia (UNTAG) in April 1989, the UN organized fifteen peacekeeping operations. Most of these operations were concerned with conflicts between states. The mandates of the missions consisted primarily of monitoring or supervising truces, cease-fires, troop withdrawals and buffer zones. Significantly, these were consent-based operations, marked by adherence on the part of the peacekeepers to the principles of cooperation, impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defense. Operations carried out during this period can be considered the first phase of peacekeeping.
This situation underwent significant changes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The end of the Cold War, the success of an ambitious operation in Namibia, and a certain sense of triumph emanating from the Gulf war all injected a new lease of confidence in the UN, thereby creating enlarged expectations about what the organization could accomplish. Responding to this new mood, the UN enter a second phase of peacekeeping and embarked on a more ambitious program of peace activities. In a space of only six years (1989-1995), the UN established twenty new peacekeeping operations. Unlike in the previous era, most of these missions (seventeen) were inserted in the context of conflicts within nations, with considerably broadened mandates, including human rights monitoring, administrative support of civilian police, election monitoring, supporting and coordinating humanitarian assistance, and national reconstruction and rehabilitation. The high points of this period were marked by the relatively successful completion of the operations conducted in Namibia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cambodia and Mozambique.
The expansion of peace operations, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, has generated serious political and financial stresses on the organization. Furthermore, high-profile failures in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina have produced a mood of retrenchment for the present and serious uncertainties about the future. What are some of the principal lessons to be derived from almost fifty years of multilateral peacemaking and peacekeeping? How can a balance between over-commitment and inaction be achieved? What are some of the challenges?
One of the paradoxical consequences of the end of the Cold War is the sudden appearance of the military in the humanitarian arena. The international community, in its response to crises, has lifted a number of inhibitions concerning sovereignty. It is now clear that sovereignty is no longer sacrosanct. Thus, the context in which humanitarian assistance is being provided is rapidly changing.
The case of Rwanda has challenged some of the very concepts of humanitarianism. The shadow of genocide is likely to have an important impact on how humanitarians will look upon future crises, and perhaps, even on the shape of the institutions of the international community. Can neutrality still be the guiding hand? For many, a system which results in the maintaining of an equanimous impartiality between the victims and the executioners is in dire need of reform.
A related trend which is shaping the environment in which humanitarian actors operate is the extent to which resources and attention are being diverted from development to relief. The exponential growth of disbursements for humanitarian assistance is unquestionable: from barely $845 million a year in 1989 to close to $5 billion in 1995.
It remains to be seen if the current escalation of complex emergencies is destined to become a permanent operational reality for the international community or if it is merely a transitory phase in the post-Cold War era. It also remains to be seen whether the donor community will be able to mobilize the political will and the resources for both quick-fix emergency assistance and for longer-term development programmes in the developing world. While serious prevention initiatives are nowhere in sight, donor exhaustion looms ominous.
Redefining Sustainable Development
Powerful new forces are rapidly changing the shape of the North-South scene and the context of the debate: "development" no longer seems to be the mobilizing paradigm, but a new paradigm has yet to emerge.
As previously noted, there is a growing tension between peacekeeping operations and development activities, primarily due to a serious disequilibrium which has emerged between resource allocations for peacekeeping and relief operations, on the one hand, and resources available for long-term development activities on the other. A number of governments and other donor institutions have started to divert resources from their development budgets to peacekeeping operations and humanitarian relief. There is a need to consciously build a conflict response component into the design of development projects, especially in countries where the potential for conflict or its escalation is high.
Furthermore, new and innovative ways of financing development, including international development cooperation, are urgently needed to address this imbalance.
International development cooperation today faces a serious financing gap; and it is a widening gap. If we consider the present international aid target of 0.7% -- which is equivalent to approximately $130 billion -- the current ODA level amounts to somewhat less than half the "target." The reason for this financing gap is not that the international community is too poor to meet these resource requirement, rather, it is that money is not forthcoming for critical purposes. Two factors are contributing to the current financing gap: (1) the purposes to be financed may not be sufficiently well-defined, and therefore, unable to attract necessary political attention and spending priority; and/or (2) the "wrong" financing sources are being tapped.
International development cooperation has a dual mandate: to assist individual countries or groups of countries in meeting their national or regional development objectives; and to help ensure that global development is balanced and sustainable. There is a need for encouraging, through appropriate incentive policies, the creation of positive global externalities -- contributions which individuals countries or regions could make in support of global development, be it more sustainable natural-resource use (such as reduced use of CFCs) or poverty reduction in the interest of global socio-political stability and slower population growth.
In addition, there is a growing need -- or demand -- for global development management because an increasing number of our activities today, including transport, communication, trade, the search for work and income, and movements of capital -- are intended to have international scope and outreach.
Can effective financing be achieved through cost-accounting and market based pricing mechanisms? Governments should avoid over-extending themselves into "doing" development. They should focus instead on facilitating and encouraging development through appropriate incentive policies, enabling various development actors to make their own contribution to agreed upon goals and targets. The social (spillover) costs of developmental actions must be internalized. Adopting the "polluter pays" principle and using market-based price mechanisms for determining the value of various developmental opportunities and resources constitute effective incentive policies. They have the dual advantage of encouraging "good" behavior while, at the same time, generating resources to finance further development.
In view of the pressing development challenges facing the international community and the severity of the present financing gap, it is surprising, and in a way alarming, that many of these issues have so far received only scant attention in development research. More theoretical analysis and empirical research must be focused on issues relating to global commons, global public goods and new and innovative ways of financing development, including international development cooperation.
States and Sovereignty in the 21st Century
In searching for the role of the UN in the 21st century, there is a pressing demand to clarify the problematic relationship of emerging supranationality and sovereignty. Do the two concepts really form a zero-sum game as has been suggested? Does an increase of supranational decision-making automatically diminish state sovereignty? Or does "pooled sovereignty" strengthen the state? Do politicians have to choose between a world-state, where the UN acts as global manager within an anarchic system of sovereign states, or one where the UN is an instrument in the hands of the most powerful state(s)? What concept of sovereignty would have to emerge to solve this dilemma?
In the face of growing internal violence, ethnic strife and blatant human rights violations, it is essential to re-evaluate sovereignty as the basic ordering principle of the international system both from an empirical and from a normative perspective. Empirically, one could ask to what extent, and how successfully, the invocation of sovereignty was used to prevent international action in the face of massive human rights violations. Normatively, it is debated whether sovereignty entails not only states' rights but also the obligation to provide for the security and well-being of the citizens. If the state fails to do so, the principle of sovereignty should not prevent the international community from responding to severe human suffering.
The UN system is a state-centric institution and, as such, it cannot be regarded as an organization that can truly represent or articulate global interests. Does the UN have the potential to become the ideal forum for addressing the global interest? For this to come about, a number of major changes need to be considered. Some of these changes could include: 1) transferring certain elements of state sovereignty over to the UN body; 2) developing a global consensus over the goals of the organization; 3) ensuring that all member states, including the major powers, will abide by the organization's decisions, carry out is requests, and give it the wherewithal to accomplish its tasks; 4) recognizing societal groups, other than state governments, as important actors in their right within the organization; and 5) ensuring that equality of humankind is more than a rhetorical statement.
At this particular juncture, however, the UN system is still little more than a vehicle of the inter-state system that created it. While it does operate within the constraints of its member-states, it has from time to time acted with a measure of autonomy. For instance, it has opened up "political space" in which non-state actors, particularly in the areas of human rights, gender equality, and ecological issues, have articulated demands and agitated for a greater role in decision-making affecting their interests.
Do we need to rethink the underlying premises and constitutive principles upon which the UN was founded, so that it can coherently express the interest that embraces the entire globe? Some observers see the traditional view of politics as giving way to a post-modern one that is being shaped more by the agitation of civil society than by any action of the traditional actors of the international system, i.e. sovereign nation-states. In fact, it may be that the national interest will in the future be subordinated to the global interest. This would mean that future multilateral institutions which purport to articulate the global interest will most probably need to become channels for the ideas and issues emerging out of global civil society.
While the UN system is clearly not yet in a position to articulate the interests and views of global civil society, it is nevertheless undergoing a process of reform. Are these changes sufficient for it to become a true institution of global governance? The answer at this stage is no. The conclusion simply indicates what is required if the UN system is to become the central forum for the articulation of global interest.
In almost all areas of political life (economic management, security policy, social policy, environmental protection, the protection of human rights, and the creation of a just society), the objectives and concerns of ordinary people can only be met adequately through global action. The articulation of the global interest can be done only through institutions that reflect those interests that emerge from a global civil society.
Global Citizenship
It is apparent that the UN presently lacks the capacity and resources to effectively perform all of the peace and security tasks that it has come to assume in recent years. An appropriate division of responsibilities between the UN and other international actors in the spheres of preventive action, peacemaking, peacekeeping, enforcement action and peace-building must therefore be developed to enable a more effective and comprehensive international response to conflict situations around the world. Such a division of labor could take advantage of the different capabilities and interests of regional organizations, national governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector and civil society at-large.
Perhaps the most significant innovation in recent years is the extent to which in underdeveloped societies, NGOs have taken over state-type functions in areas like health and education, as well as the bulk of the delivery of relief services in faltering or failed states.
Article 17 of the UN Charter offers a narrow formal opening in the wall of governmental representation. NGOs apply to ECOSOC for consultative status in increasing numbers so that the most privileged category rose from seven in 1948 to 41 in 1991, while the category with narrower access to the Council itself grew from 32 to 354. The category of NGOs that has the loosest affiliation with ECOSOC included some 2,000 by 1995. Nobody really knows precisely how many NGOs exist, or how many act in the UN context. One informed estimate include 15,000 NGOs that operate in three or more countries and have financial support in more than one country.
Given the robust activity of NGOs and the increasing prominence of their presence in the UN system, they could be expected to pose issues that remain unresolved and offer opportunities for action well into the next century. The calls for democratization of the UN system and of member country political systems, so urgently posed by Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, suggest a favorable ideological climate for NGO functions. In this regard, the need for a broader UN constituency also favors NGO approaches.
It would be unwise, however, to conclude that NGOs and their work always advance international cooperation, democratization and projects of international agency. Some NGOs take positions contrary to international norms and policies; some may actively attempt to obviate this application. Moreover, the doctrinal purity of NGOs is no more immune from adultery than some of the best-intentioned governments of the world. With advancing NGO activity, a stronger element of opposition to UN recommendations and programs and indeed to the whole practice of international organization might also surface during the years ahead.
Knowledge of the NGO universe is rather primitive. Consequently, forecasting and thorough understanding and explanation of what happens there remains tenuous at best. A better understanding of the NGO universe would be essential in understanding its relationship to democratization and popular representation.
It is evident that in the future world the UN will have to deal much more with private business groups and other private non-governmental institutions. Some experts say that this should be reflected in the structure of the UN, and suggest an ILO-type solution in which the governments, workers and the employers are represented. It is clear that in the reform of the UN system cooperation between intergovernmental bodies and especially the main international organization and international business should be considered. It is also an important postulate that the member governments should take into account, much more firmly than in the past, that the involvement of business groups in the negotiations of key issues will be increasingly indispensable.
What is needed for the future of the UN system is not so much the recovery of the weakening state sovereignty as the fuller integration of non-state actors in the working of the UN system. Their fuller integration would contribute to the strengthening of the legitimacy of the UN which above all needs greater interest in and wider support of its work on the part of the general public and in particular their organized and active segments as non-state actors.
Regionalism in the 21st Century
The UN Charter invokes regionalism in relationship to only one function of the organization, "the maintenance of international peace and security." Although the Charter makes no reference to regionalism in the fulfillment of the UN's economic and social mission, today there exists five regional economic commissions under the aegis of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Regionalism is manifested in yet another way in the UN -- the requirement for "equitable and geographic distribution" in the election of non-permanent members of the Security Council.
Great interest in regionalism has been demonstrated with regard to the UN's mission for the maintenance of international peace and security. Ethnic, civil and regional conflicts unleashed following the end of the Cold War stretched the UN's peacekeeping capabilities beyond their limits, sharing the burden with regional organizations seemed to be the logical direction into which to move. The increase in the number of crisis situations dealt with by the Security Council is reflected in the growth of the number of cooperative arrangements between the UN and regional organizations in the form of consultations, diplomatic support, operational support, co-deployment of field missions and joint operations.
The current conventional wisdom appears to support the notion that regional organizations can and should play greater roles in peacemaking and peacekeeping and, in doing so, share some of the burden now being carried by the UN itself. Is there a logical division of labor between the UN and regional entities? Do either hold a comparative advantage over the other? Can the principle of subsidiarity be applied to this relationship? What is the place of regionalism for the UN in an era of globalization?
While regionalism has considerable potential, it also suffers severe limitations. On its own, regionalism will be ineffective in ensuring the security of participating countries. It has to be viewed as part of a package that includes national self-help, regional and global balances of power, alliance with extra-regional powers, and the UN collective security system. The salience of each of these elements and the "right" combination will vary with the circumstances of each country.
An examination of the most current issues involving regional bodies in peace maintenance clearly demonstrates the present lack of capacity of regional arrangements to play a leading role in conflict resolution and peacekeeping. For the most part, they lack either the resources or experience. But above all, crucial regional actors are often too close to the conflict to behave in the impartial above the fray manner required of a third-party intervener. In sum, regional organizations generally lack the credibility, the capacity and hence, the clout to act effectively as agents for collective security and peaceful settlement. Work has to be undertaken to gain an understanding of the expectation gap between what is demanded of regional organizations and what they can deliver. The issue is not "regionalism versus globalism," but the relationship between regionalism and universalism in this era of globalization.
Readying International Organizations for the 21st Century
With the emergence of problems associated with globalization and fragmentation, the world body has been given vast responsibilities, but it clearly lacks at present the political, military, material, and financial resources required to accomplish these tasks. How can the UN and international institutions adjust in the context of globalization?
Several major proposals for restructuring and reinvigorating the UN have recently appeared. They most notably include: The United Nations in Its Second Half Century: The Report of the Independent Working Group organized by the Ford Foundation and Yale University; Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance; and Reforming the United Nations: A View From the South by Dar es Salaam of the South Centre. All derive from a certain liberal internationalist perspective, and are addressed to achieving a broad vision of human security, defined as attentive to the security of individuals as well as states, and to a broad range of human rights: political, social and economic. Any set of proposals to have a chance of acceptability, must strike a balance between various competing goals and perspectives.
Should some of the recommendations articulated in these reports and others be implemented and, if so, which ones? Is it possible to visualize a UN in the coming years that is a tighter, more efficient and more representative organization, able to exercise leadership in the formulation of global economic and social policies? Which reform efforts would enable the UN to provide substantial support for economic and social development to states where governance has failed? Which would enable quick action in humanitarian and security crises?
There is widespread agreement that any discussion on the evolving peace and security agenda of the UN must take account of the growing demand for reform of the Security Council that seeks to achieve the following four main objectives: (1) clarification of the role and mandate of the Council; (2) recomposition of its membership; (3) broadening of the base of participation and transparency in the work of the Council; and (4) strengthening the effectiveness and credibility of the Council.
Some of the most pressing questions relating to reform in the economic sphere include: How can the mandates of the economic institutions of the UN be updated to be more effective and to avoid overlap? How should the roles of these institutions be considered in light of evolving challenges? What reform efforts will help to create a better and productive cooperation between the UN system and the international financial institutions and facilitate a greater role for the private sector?
The present shape of the international economic order is still largely a consequence of the major exercise in international institution building that took place at the end of World War II, along with the creation of the UN. In the economic area, the resulting Bretton Woods System still reflects the interests of states, in particular the US, which have played a dominant role in its design and its management. In recent years, pressures for systemic reforms have grown as a result of two major developments. First, the emergence of powerful new actors in the international economic has brought about a relative decline in the capacity of the US for leadership of the system. The other development largely unforeseen at the time of the creation of the Bretton Woods Institutions has been the emergence of large capital movements, freeing money from national control and diminishing the capacity for public-sector intervention in the management of the international economic system. The growth of capital flows has made the problems of monetary arrangements infinitely more complex.
Today, people recognize the new challenges: increased economic interdependence brings new issues into the international economic agenda. As globalization continues, a third wave of non-border, non-economic measures now seems poised to join the agenda: environment, migration and labor conditions. This agenda shift has raised major problems for the international economic order, it requires the participation of new players, different government agencies, and different private sector constituencies.
Globalization will be the major driving force in the next fifty years and will push nations to work together, rather than against each other. A growing case is emerging for deeper integration, given the need for international cooperation in areas previously in the domestic domain. The environment, investment and competition, to take three examples, are no longer seen as purely domestic policy issues. In addition, the extent to which national macro-economic policies are interdependent has intensified.
It would be unwise to place all hopes for the maintenance of human security in the next century on the realization of recommendations for UN reform. The effectiveness of the UN is closely related to the convergence of interests of its member states. As the new century grows close, the convergence between East and West, indeed among all of the advanced economy countries, is far greater than that between the poor countries of the South and the developed countries of the North. The extensive differences and distrust that presently exists between these two groups may well limit the extent of the reforms that can be introduced. A quality of leadership, which is lacking at present, is sorely needed to overcome this obstacle.
The principal component of the United Nations System in the 21st Century Project (UN21) is five research groups. Under each Research Organizer, five teams of scholars and practitioners are commissioned to produce reports on different study areas: the state system; global citizenship; market forces; regional arrangements; and international organizations. Each year, according to their research theme, the Research Organizers develop their research programs and select experts for specific issues. They report their research results at the annual symposium that will be held in autumn alternately at the UN University Headquarters in Tokyo and UN Headquarters in New York.
I. RESEARCH ORGANIZERS
The Research Organizers lead the five actor-specific research groups. Five leading scholars have been designated as Research Organizers and are expected to provide their expertise in developing and coordinating five-year research programmes according to their designated angles. Working closely with the Academic Division, the Research Organizers specify the research agenda every year. At the review and agenda-setting meeting held immediately after the Annual Symposium, the Research Organizers will discuss the research agenda for the following year. Each year, they will focus on one issue area — peace and security (1996), the environment (1997), development (1998), human dignity (1999) and governance (2000) — and all Research Organizers will be assigned one issue area in which they will play a leading role. The Research Organizers are encouraged to actively participate in other issue areas.
1. States and Sovereignty (Research Organizer: Atul Kohli)
In the coming century will nation states remain the most important actor in world affairs? Will international organizations, especially the United Nations, be dominated by states? Or will increasing international cooperation gradually erode state sovereignty? One crucial question is whether the present international system based on sovereign states will be sustainable in the future. This research group focuses on the future of state sovereignty and inter-governmental cooperation. Throughout the project, researchers brought together will address several key questions related to the state system and international institutions, while examining the relationships between the state and the two models of the United Nations.
Examining the possibilities and problems of the state system, the States and Sovereignty research should search for the best model for the United Nations. How can the Organization best serve the essential needs of humankind within the state-centric paradigm? In the existing inter-governmental framework, how can the United Nations achieve international cooperation in order to solve various problems of military, political, economic, social, cultural and humanitarian dimensions. Which heuristic models can better serve useful purposes in the state system? The research group on States and Sovereignty should address these questions.
2. Global Citizenship (Research Organizer: Volker Rittberger)
This research stream on Global Citizenship focuses on the future of non-governmental organizations and global civil society in world affairs. In the world of nation-states — and regardless of their wishes — the global community of people has been steadily expanding and will continue to do so. Within the UN system, non-governmental actors have played an increasingly prominent role in various areas, ranging from humanitarian assistance and human rights to the environment. Outside the U.N. system, multinational corporations and the international media have become dynamic driving forces of change in the world. Across the board, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become more active in the agenda-setting, decision-making and implementation processes. National governments can no longer ignore the influence of non-state actors in the international arena and have already begun to work together with them in a variety of global issues.
The principal objective of this research group is to reassess the relationship between the UN system and a growing array of non-governmental actors worldwide. In the two scenarios for the United Nations in the mid-21st century, what role can non-state actors play in securing world peace, and in enhancing human welfare and dignity? In which issue areas, can NGOs solve problems effectively, when governments are unwilling or unable to act? Over what interests do governments and NGOs clash? And how will this conflict of interests effect the United Nations? Answers to these questions should help us to probe possibilities and limitations for non-state actors.
3. Market Forces (Research Organizer: Heizo Takenaka)
As the globalization and liberalization of economic activity continue to pick up pace, the role of the private sector in international affairs will expand accordingly. Multinational enterprises play an increasingly significant role in not only the economic but the political arena. The research group on Market Forces will examine the dynamics of international economic forces and the functions of international private businesses and their relationships with states and international organizations. Can the United Nations and other international institutions cooperate with the private sector in addressing a wide array of global issues? Will the increasingly powerful private sector eventually erode state sovereignty and in the long run help to create a truly transnational community? How could the private sector and the United Nations cooperate in dealing with global problems effectively? These questions will be critically studied by the research group on the Market Force.
4. Regional Arrangements (Research Organizer: Muthiah Alagappa)
Regionalism lies between state-centered multilateralism and globalism. For various reasons, regionalism has been promoted in different areas. Yet, although attempts have been made to build regional organizations in many areas, only a few have produced desirable results. Thus, this research group should investigate the past and present states of regionalism to clarify its potential and viability in the future. One central question concerns the compatibility of regionalism with national interests and global interests. As a half-way house between the state system and global society, regionalism has both prospects and limitations. How does regionalism fit the two models of the United Nations in this project?
5. International Organizations (Research Organizer: Michael Doyle)
If the status quo of the UN system is unacceptable, what can be done to reform it? In particular, what kind of change is required to turn the UN into the two models proposed in this project. From a microscopic perspective, the research group on UN reform and international civil service examines resources and structures. It particularly focuses on how the UN and the international community can generate agreement on the concept of "sustainable development." What can be done to achieve this? How can environmentally and socially sustainable economic development be achieved? What roles can the UN bodies, NGOs and private sector groups play in addressing these issues in the 21st century? Among the key topics in this issue area are environmental protection and economic growth, the environment and sustainable development, biodiversity, climate change, desertification and forests.
II. ADVISORY BODIES
International Advisory Committee
The United Nations University will appoint prominent scholars and practitioners as members of the International Advisory Committee. Each member will be requested to provide advice for the preparation and progress of the project. All project reports are to be presented to the board members for comments. The University has also appointed Dr. Thomas Weiss of Brown University as the Secretary-General of the International Advisory Board. He will play a key role in facilitating communications between the board members and the Project Coordinator, and will prepare the annual Advisory Report.
Working Advisory Group
The Working Advisory Group helps the Research Organizers frame the research agenda every year. The Academic Division will assemble a group of leading UN experts, both scholars or practitioners, from various issue areas at the annual Interaction Meeting where the Research Organizers will present their in-progress research reports. They will play a crucial role in bridging the gap between academics and practitioners by providing advice and suggestions for the Research Organizers. The Working Advisory Group also serves as a resource for the Research Organizers.
III. ISSUE AREAS
To increase policy relevance for the project, teams working in the five research groups will address one specific issue area each year. Thereby, the project will enable research teams to concentrate on specific issue areas and come up with more concrete policy prescriptions. This will help to determine the feasibility of certain UN roles in specific issues. Using the proposed generic analytical frameworks, research should be conducted on specific issues in the five different areas — military, humanitarian, economic, environmental and political. As we focus on concrete, micro issues, we could produce specific policy recommendations. While exploring short-term policy prescriptions, however, we should also seek long-term visions.
Issue Area 1 (1996) : Peace and Security (Military dimension)
In the 21st century, will military power continue to be useful? What principle should govern the use of military force? Who should be allowed to use it? What mechanisms should be established to ensure the legitimacy and efficacy of using force? What are the conditions for peace? How can the United Nations act as an effective mediator? Peacekeeping became a growth industry immediately after the Cold War ended. But it is becoming a declining industry now. Why do some peacekeeping operations succeed, while others fail? Should the United Nations revert to traditional peacekeeping and abandon a comprehensive approach to peacebuilding? What conditions are required to achieve a more complex mode of peacekeeping? Among the key topics in this issue area are conflict management, peace-keeping, and conflict prevention.
Issue Area 2 (1997): Environment
A variety of treaties and institutions grew out of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED or, more familiarly, the Earth Summit), held in Rio in 1992. The treaties that emerged (on climate change, biological diversity, desertification, etc.) represent significant attempts by the international community to reach consensus on the means of addressing specific environmental concerns. However, concrete implementation of the agreements reach at the Earth Summit have not yet materialized, hampered by the pursuit of competing interests by national governments, the private sector and interest groups, as well as by political disputes and economic disparities. What can be done to forge a new era of common respect and responsibility for a shared planet? Are global environmental protection and issues of economic and social equity directly linked? One of the primary challenges currently facing the UN and the international community is to generate agreement on the concept of "sustainable development." What can be done to achieve this? How can environmentally and socially sustainable economic development be achieved? What roles can the UN bodies, NGOs and private sector groups play in addressing these issues in the 21st century? Among the key topics in this issue area are environmental protection and economic growth, the environment and sustainable development, biodiversity, climate change, desertification and forests.
Issue Area 3 (1998): Development (Economic Dimension)
Who should carry out development? States, the private sector, or international organizations? And how should development be achieved? Through market mechanisms or politics? As the linkage between development and environment continues to grow, is "sustainable development" really feasible? Can technology provide a solution for resource management? In the 21st century, how should the United Nations address these closely interrelated issues? Among the key topics in this issue area are sustainable development,
trade and investment, and technology.
Issue Area 4 (1999): Human Dignity (Humanitarian Dimension)
In the post-Cold War era, humanitarianism has finally gained international acceptance. Yet the United Nations has been floundering in many parts of the world, unable to live up to international expectations about meeting basic human needs. It has often failed in protecting human rights, providing humanitarian assistance and combating humanitarian disasters and epidemics. How can the international community solve these problems through international cooperation? Is the United Nations "the" answer? Is it doomed to failure because of institutional and political reasons? Should state sovereignty be constricted in order to prevent massive human rights abuses? Is the concept of humanitarian assistance compatible with that of peacekeeping? Among the key topics in this issue area are human rights, humanitarian assistance, population control, and global food security.
Issue Area 5 (2000): Governance (Political Dimension)
Democracy has been increasingly accepted as a universal goal and solution to various problems in the world. How does democracy serve the purposes of the United Nations? Does democracy foster peace, economic development and respect for human rights? Year by year, more treaties are signed, ratified and integrated into a growing web of international law. Has the world become more peaceful and orderly and, if so, will it continue? International organizations cannot escape from political, regional and international politics, which always determine the performance of the UN and other international institutions. Yet the relationship between the structure of the UN system and the political processes surrounding them have been complex and changing. How does politics affect the United Nations? Among the key topics in this issue area are democratization, international law, and political processes.