(Part 2) Briefing for Delegates on the 81st General Assembly and Main Committees
Meetings & Events
Date: 14 September 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1unpwpbqr
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

UNITAR · Moderator [0:05]:

So, Excellencies, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure. Let's resume, please. So, I notice a lot of persons with a lot of energy in this room after lunch. It's a pleasure to see that. And we are going to enter straight into the main course of today, rules of procedure. Rules of procedure are the heart of conference diplomacy. They are in general perceived as a tool of negotiation, but beyond that, they, I think, delineate the interlinkage between the formal and the informal processes. They are at the crossroad. And in addition, they provide the framework within political dialogue is made possible. And for this, we have our two colleagues, Ms. Fita Onwua, Suanya, who is the Secretary Legal Officer and Office at the Office of the Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, and Ms. Diana Pranishnikava, who is also a Legal Officer. Thank you, Vita. Thank you, Diana, for being with us. So they are going to be our guiding souls for rules of procedure. Thank you, and the floor is yours.


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [1:18]:

Thank you very much. I'm trying to remember your name. Rabi. Rabi. Thank you, Rabi. And thank you also, distinguished colleagues, this afternoon. I can see you've survived at least one day and also maybe some of the more hectic presentations already. I'm also very grateful that I think DGACM colleagues have already presented, including protocol. And so I think you've already gotten your feet wet a little bit on some of the procedure, I think, from some of those presentations. And so we are going to just try to ride that wave and bring in a little more maybe specificity to some of the issues that you might encounter this session. So as Robbie said, my name is Vita. I'm a senior legal officer in the Office of Legal Counsel. Our work as the Office of Legal Counsel covers a wide variety of issues, rules of procedure, The team that myself and Diana work on covers also institutional questions as well as questions on terminology. So there is a broad scope to our work. And I think we will maybe have engaged with maybe some of your delegations on some of the issues relevant to your work. I will let Ziana also just introduce herself very briefly before we jump into what I hope will not be a very long presentation.


OLA · Legal Officer [2:47]:

Thank you, Vita. Good afternoon, distinguished delegates. My name is Ziana, and as Vita mentioned, I work in the Office of the Legal Counsel. So it's a pleasure to see all of you in the room. We hope that you find this further informative to the information that you have already received. And just in terms of structure, we will leave time at the end for questions, so please feel free to mark the questions that you may have, and we will be happy to address them at the end. Thank you.


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [3:21]:

Okay, so, and when we talk about rules of procedure this afternoon, we will be confining ourselves to the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, you may be aware that the different intergovernmental organs of the UN have their own rules of procedure. They are somewhat similar in some aspects, but they also have some distinguishing factors. So what I actually want to-- this is surely out of my own curiosity, is to know how many of you amongst you are here with the permanent mission for a while, or and those of you that are just here for the duration of the session, just to get a sense of who we have in our audience. You can just put your hands up for those that are here only for the session. Okay. And so I will take it that those that didn't put up their hands are here a little bit longer. Okay. Well, that's very good to know also, because from what I hear, there was a presentation by Ambassador Borhan of Singapore, and I'm told that he mentioned that you should expect chaos. So I'm hoping that you're ready and you're buckled up tight because it could be a very interesting ride. But what I wanted to actually say in that regard is chaos is probably also one of the reasons why we have rules. And so the rules of procedure, you know, are there to guide the conduct of business, the how the meeting, the, you know, the process the process of the meeting, the proceedings, what happens, what can and what can member states do and maybe not do within the context of meetings at the, let's say, under the guidance of the presiding officer. In this case, for the General Assembly, as you know, the presiding officer is the president of the General Assembly. So let's just say we have the GA, you know, the meeting has convened. One of the first things that we're looking to see is that there is, I'm going to just move the slide, is that we have quorum. So in order for any meeting of the GA to start, there has to be what is understood to be quorum, basically enough members or member states in the room to be able to say that the meeting may start. So the rule is rule 67 of the rules of procedure. Don't worry, you don't need to take notes. We will make this presentation. The PowerPoint will be available to you later for your reference. So you can also have that as a little bit of a cheat sheet for some instances. So once there is quorum, the president may declare a meeting open and permit the debate to commence. And the quorum is established as one third of the members of the General Assembly. not very great at math, but that would put that at around, I think, 64 or thereabouts. Now, one of the interesting things here is that we have what we call the general committee of the GA, which, if you like, is sort of like I would liken it to a bureau of sorts that sort of sets out certain organizational aspects to the work of the GA, and certain, let's say, add-ons to procedure and other, let's say, matters that arise within the context of the conduct of business. And so there is a recommendation from the General Committee, and I'm going to ask Diana to just reference for you the current recommendation that was just adopted last Friday by the GA.


OLA · Legal Officer [7:18]:

Yes, thank you. This is an interesting bit of procedural decision, one of those that is taken usually at that very early stage in the session. perhaps to help organize the proceedings in the most efficient manner. So as you can see on the screen, the recommendation itself is that there is a certain practice that has developed over the years, and to follow that practice and to, you know, in case it's a plenary meeting of the Assembly or one of its main committee meetings, that the requirement be waived and then in a sense that that waiver would not imply that there is some sort of permanent change to the rules, but rather a specific decision on how the rules would be applied for a given session. You know, this is -- has been a longstanding practice, and it does allow some flexibility for certain meetings to begin with that waiver in mind. So that's one of those elements that the Secretariat also keeps a close track of the number of members that are present in a given meeting. So that's one of those calculations that would be made usually by our Secretariat's colleagues, who you will see in the room, either on the podium or on the side before the meeting. So all of those calculations are made taking into account that recommendation that goes from the General Committee and then is adopted, considered and then adopted by the General Assembly during that first week of the session.


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [9:09]:

Thank you, Ziana. So I hope it's clear. So basically, what happens is that the requirement for one third is waived, which means that everybody agrees to turn a blind eye to the fact that there are not 64 people in the room. That understanding is without prejudice to the rule on quorum. It does not mean that the rule is not applicable more generally, but there is that agreement in order to ensure that the assembly is able to continue with its work. Otherwise, there are instances where it might just be not very, let's say, helpful to the work moving forward if that is, you know, let's say, applied so rigidly. And so this is sort of just like a recommendation. And I'll maybe just draw your attention in that regard. The relevant, you may want to write this down because it's not in the PowerPoint, but you could reference document A/81/250. That's the first report, the report of the General Committee that Ziana was just reading from. And it is really very helpful in order, you know, to understand just some of the, let's say, recommendations that help to build the practice of the work of the GA that is not necessarily captured in the rules. So the rules are their own framework, but there is some sort of practice that evolves over the years. And so these reports that are adopted by the GA help you sort of, I'll use the term very loosely, with air quotes, codify in a sense the practice. So it's a good reference tool if you want to just understand what is the actual practice outside of what you read on the rules themselves. Okay. So just moving on, the presiding officer, the PGA has opened the meeting. There's quorum. Now we're in the hands of the president. There is a rule in the rules of procedure that provides guidance to the President in terms of what they may, what responsibilities they have towards the meeting. So, for example, rule 35. of the rules of procedure says that the president of the General Assembly may open and close each plenary meeting of the General Assembly, may direct the discussions in plenary meetings, which could mean including managing the list of speakers, according the right to speak, and also determining time limits. And you will see that sometimes during this session, especially When some speakers go over their time limits, their microphone might be cut or they may be given a subtle reminder just before that happens. But sometimes it can happen also very abruptly. So, and sometimes some speakers ignore the cutoff and they continue speaking. But in principle, they should actually stop when the mic is cut off. But just to say that, so the presiding officer or the PGA would be the one sort of managing those aspects of the meeting. The PGA would also rule on points of order. So, points of order are, you will see later in the presentation, is there is a, it's a, let's say, one of the procedural motions that can be raised by, made by a delegation. And There is no particular definition of what is a point of order. It kind of maybe speaks for itself, but a delegation may rise to a point of order on whatever it thinks is out of order, essentially. And so this is really something that is within the purview of yourselves. If you feel there are certain issues within the context of the conduct of the of business that maybe your delegation feels are not consistent with the reading of the rules or what is expected of that meeting, then, you know, the delegation may rise to a point of order, and then the president of the, you know, will then rule on those, on that point of order. And in certain instances, the ruling of the president can be challenged. And when the ruling of the president is challenged, then it has to be put to a vote immediately. And then the decision on that then determines how the business moves forward. So another thing that the Rule 35 also prescribes is that the president may also propose the adjournment or suspension of a meeting. So that is within the purview of the presiding officer. I will move on to the next slide. And the reason why we're moving straight into this one on the decision making is also because that is also captured in the rule that we just looked at on quorum. So I'll just go back to that one where it says, if you see the second sentence after the sentence on the quorum where it says one third is required in order for debate to proceed, The other sentence says the presence of a majority of the members still be required for any decision to be taken. Diana, do you want to say anything on that?


OLA · Legal Officer [14:24]:

Right. And then you will have also noticed that as part of the recommendation by the General Committee at the very end of that quote that we have on the slide, that that specific part is really still in full force, for lack of a better expression, during the meeting. So what we are talking about with the waiver is for the opening of the meeting. But when it comes to the actual taking of decision, which is usually very clearly delineated when the President presents the matter to be decided upon, it will usually be very clearly indicated that now we are entering an action stage this is when the actual consideration and perhaps a discussion that finishes before that, and then we move to the action phase. So when Vita was describing points of order and, you know, some of these questions that may be quite contentious, this also on another part of that scale, perhaps brings to everyone's mind the consensus decision making. So for those of you who were already looking up that term in the rules of procedure, you may have found that it doesn't really mention that method of decision making. So just to confirm that it's indeed the case that the rules themselves do not expressly provide for consensus as decision making. This is really a practice, again, that has developed in the General Assembly and, of course, in other organs of the United Nations as well. So, when you would look at the rules, the rules will really identify how to proceed should it not be possible to proceed on the basis of consensus. So, When the rules refer to voting as the decision-making process, you can look at it as sort of the second stage that follows should the consensus would prove not possible to reach on a particular matter. But this is to say that also consensus is really the most prominent decision-making method in practice, and the majority of the decisions that you will also be following across your different portfolios would probably be adopted by consensus. And in that sense, in just kind of more common terms, you know, you can think of it as a presence of a general agreement in the room. And in that context, this is something where a decision is really just adopted without a vote. So it does not equate with everyone agreeing absolutely to every single word or every single provision if it's a resolution or a decision. This really means an absence of a formal objection by a delegation to proceeding on the basis of that general agreement. And that, on the other hand, means that once there is a request for a vote, that really means that the consensus is no more. It has been broken. And therefore, those decision-making rules that refer to voting are triggered, and it will be based on the rules of procedure that the organ, and in particular, of course, the General Assembly, will proceed. Sometimes questions have been asked about what it means to actually, you know, perhaps not break consensus, but also make it clear that perhaps your delegation disagrees with either some of the provisions or maybe even the decision to be taken as a whole. So that is possible. And that happens maybe I wouldn't say often, but it happens periodically. And you will find different ways how that could be done. In a way, it may be a statement that your delegation makes and it explains its position. And I think we will cover that in a little bit more details later on in the presentation. But in a sense, everything that falls short of a formal objection, meaning request for a vote, would be interpreted as a presence of a general agreement. And it's open really to delegations to explain what it means for their delegation to have perhaps a specific position. on things.


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [19:15]:

Thank you. I hope that's clear. I think the most for me, the most important takeaway was there is nothing in the rules of procedure. There's no word consensus in the rules of procedure. You can search all day. It will just not appear. So this is definitely something that is really a matter of practice, but it's a very longstanding practice and really when consensus cannot be achieved, there is a degree of sadness in the room. And when consensus is achieved, there is a lot of jubilation sometimes, especially when it has been a very difficult negotiation. So you may witness that in some of the meetings that you find yourselves in, especially I think we have some of the high level meetings as well, where there might be some, you know, political declarations being negotiated and Yeah, we have seen eruptions of really like football stadium type of jubilation sometimes when consensus is finally achieved after very long negotiations. So very important, almost like a cornerstone in terms of the practice of the General Assembly in decision making. And we are hoping that you will also be infected by the consensus bug and in your negotiations and that you'll strive to achieve that as well. But just to piggyback on one of the last things that Diana mentioned with regards to when perhaps your delegation may feel that they are not really fully there and not fully in general agreement, but also not really disagreeing. And so in that case, you know, your delegation may wish to just maybe be a little clearer in terms of what they actually intend or mean. So in some instances that could be, let's say, a reservation. And so that could be a reservation to maybe parts of the decision, certain paragraphs, certain words. Or that could also be a dissociation from certain parts or paragraphs. And so also in some instances, we have seen delegations insist that even though there are summary records of all the proceedings, they will still make the point that we wish this to be placed on the record and just to emphasize that this really means a lot to their delegation. So these are just some, you know, observations that you may also take into account in your work during this session. And so we have the scenario now of, let's say, where your delegation is really decidedly not in agreement and really would love to move to a vote on the matter in question. And so we have rule 82, which actually reproduces-- is it article 19 or article 18? Can you just check?


OLA · Legal Officer [22:06]:

We can all double check. And those of you also who have the charter?


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [22:09]:

If you have your charter, you can check with us. Just want to be sure we're quoting the, referencing the right one. It is 18. So that's a typo there in the PowerPoint. Just make a note of that. It should be 18. So, Article 18 of the Charter. So basically, Rule 82 of the Rules of Procedure reproduces Article 18 of the Charter, basically specifying that each member shall have one vote. So you don't get to, it's not a buy one, get one free kind of situation. You just have the one vote in the General Assembly. There is, of course, the particular or peculiar situation of some members that may lose their right to vote. and in that regard, there is a process that, you know, let's say evolves in that regard, and a decision is taken by the General Assembly on those that are in arrears, and sometimes in accordance with the relevant provisions of the charter, members that are in arrears may actually be granted an exemption because of certain special circumstances, in which case they will remain in arrears, at least, you know, they're still in arrears, but they are still allowed to retain their right to vote. At present, I don't think we have any exceptions from the most recent decision taken earlier, I think, on the first day of the session. So right now, we have four member states that are in arrears. And, yeah. That's until a decision is taken on any exemptions, maybe later in the session, those would be the four. I don't know if any of you know who any of the four might be. It's not, you know, we won't grade this quiz, but it's just out of curiosity in case you might know. I see some nods. If you're nodding, I would expect you to say something. So I invite our colleague that I'm looking straight at right now, yes.


Speaker 11 [24:23]:

Put me on the spot. Absolutely. I believe it's Afghanistan, Cabo Verde, Venezuela.


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [24:32]:

What about the last one though? You had two of them correct, you got a two out of four. So it's not Cabo Verde, but it is another West African state. Does anybody--


Speaker 13 [24:42]:

Sao Tome? Sao Tomea?


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [24:43]:

Yes, Sao Tomea. Yes, and the fourth? No? I see, who is 173 or 189?


Speaker 15 [24:57]:

Libya?


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [24:59]:

Oh, Bolivia, thank you. I think that's correct. Okay, all right, so that's good. So let's proceed. So, why -- okay. So, in terms of the -- moving on with voting, so, you know, your delegation is not happy with this, with the way things are going. Consensus is not an option on the table for you. You have instructions from capital. There are some red lines that just cannot be crossed. And so, you have been instructed that you must request for a vote. Your own personal opinions don't matter at this point. You have instructions. So, you, you know, you take the floor and you say that, you know, you want to request for a vote on X, Y, Z. It may be on one paragraph. It may be on the entirety of the, of the draft that is before the, the assembly. And so in order for there to be, let's say, a proper conduct of business in terms of the voting, there is a majority that is required to be satisfied in order for it to be that the decision has, you know, let's say, properly been taken. So we have in rule 85 what we refer to as the simple majority. And so it's kind of weirdly phrased. It's phrased in sort of an upside down manner. So it says decisions of the General Assembly on questions other than those provided for in Rule 83, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting. So the bottom line is that decisions should be taken normally by a majority, except for those that are covered by Rule 83, where there are certain categories of issues or questions that require a two-thirds majority. And I'll just ask Sianna to just very quickly take a, read us through some of those that require a two-thirds majority, just so we're, we don't lose sight of that immediately.


OLA · Legal Officer [27:18]:

Right. So it's Actually, you know, the history perhaps of the negotiation of the Charter would give a more academic look into how the ideas were developed for those questions that would be considered important and therefore requiring a higher threshold to be adopted. And there were certain that were enumerated specifically, and those are the ones that you find in this rule. I think for those of you who will be covering or are already covering the Fifth Committee, you will be very familiar with the last point related to budgetary questions. But also there are other decisions that would be taken by two-thirds majority as a default. And you will see that the first one that is mentioned are recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, which is quite clear. And then there are certain kinds of elections that were already determined to have that higher threshold required for members to be considered elected. And in particular, you will see this refers to the members of the Security Council that are elected by the General Assembly, then So, of course, the members of the Economic and Social Council, as well as there is this reference to the Trusteeship Council, which, you know, we will not go into further details here, but it's there should it be needed. And then the admission of new members is also one of those that would attract that higher threshold majority for the decision to be adopted. And because that is required for the admission, it's a similar threshold for the suspension of the rights and privileges of the members or expulsion, as the case may be. And then, you know, the trusteeship operation, which has been, you know, evolving over the years since the creation of the organization are also one of those that would fall under those important questions. So usually the short handle when someone refers to important question questions, this is what is being referenced. And then as you will have seen in the rule 85, this also refers to the possibility to decide on other matters that may be decided with that higher threshold majority. So that is one of those things that you will sometimes perhaps see the GA proceed on the basis of a two-thirds majority for other things. So this is possible. It's, let's say, maybe just not automatic as it would be for certain already enumerated matters that would be considered as important matters and therefore require a two-thirds majority. And I thought maybe already to explain that reference to the members present and voting, you again will have seen that present in both rules, regardless of the threshold. So what it actually means, there is a separate rule on that, and it is rule 86. So what we're talking about when we are referring to those present and voting, those members that either cast an affirmative vote, so press yes, or a negative vote, so press no. Those members that are abstaining from voting do not count towards that calculation of the majority. So this is sometimes maybe confusing when, you know, you're just starting out, perhaps, to look at how those different numbers are calculated. But in fact, this formula is really simple. So once you can see how many have voted yes, how many have voted no, you have the members that are actually voting. So this would be the important calculation, in particular when we're talking about two-thirds majority, because that's where sometimes attract that higher agreement may be more difficult and may take some additional time, as it sometimes happens, for example, in elections, where you need members to really agree on a candidate with that higher degree of confidence from the membership. Perhaps we can put it like that.


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [32:09]:

Thanks, Diana. And maybe just to say on the point of elections, I know Diana referenced the yes, no, abstain. You'll see it in front of you on your something that you have in front of you there where you're allowed to vote. But for elections, there is no no. So because you get elections are by secret ballot. So in the rules, there is a rule that provides for the conduct of elections. And so all elections are held by secret ballot, which means that first, it's secret, which obviously means that it can't be on these machines because everything is displayed on the screen when you're voting with the recorded, you know, this this machine, the voting machine. So secret ballot is there is a ballot paper Just like in the old days and you check on the paper against the box next to your preferred candidate. And the only way you can express that you don't support or favor a certain candidate is if you leave it blank. So there is no check box for no. And I say this also because the question actually came up. We were asked by some delegations recently, why can't the ballot paper have a place where we can say no, so that they can be very clear in expressing that they don't support a certain candidate. And we had to explain that, no, the whole purpose of the ballot is to express which candidate you favor. So there is no check mark for no on your secret ballot. So for those of you that are staying for the duration of the session or longer than this, the high level segment, there are elections coming up even within this this year, a month or so. So if you're, you know, one of those that will be in those elections, you will be able to see that actually in action. Okay. So I think we can proceed. And we've kind of covered that. So we are now at the point where we've talked a lot about the decisions and how the decisions are taken. We've talked a little bit about points of order and things like that. One thing just to mention, because we just finished talking about voting, there is a rule that within the context of the voting process, When the president announces that voting has commenced, there is no opportunity to rise at that point to a point of order or really make any really procedural motions unless they relate very directly to the conduct of the voting itself. So once the presiding officer, I say presiding officer because sometimes it may be one of the vice presidents and not just the PGA. So Once the Presiding Officer announces that voting has commenced, you may now, you know, da-da-da, if it's a recorded vote, or if it's for secret ballot or for elections, they will have said that, you know, the voting has now commenced and you're invited then to make your relevant mark on the paper. At that point, that's it. No points of order or procedural motions unless very directly related to the conduct of voting. And that's just to make sure that that voting process goes by smoothly and uninterrupted because it can be a little disruptive to the proceedings if there are still motions going on and some are trying to indicate, you know, what they, what their position is on, on a particular, um, on a particular matter that is being the subject matter of a decision. So I just wanted to say that real quick before we move on to the next part. so we have uh rule 78 we know you have your decision but before you can take the decision there is a proposal so this draft that we keep we've kind of been saying the draft or you know the decision that is going to be taken has to pertain to a proposal so proposals are tabled usually by a delegation but sometimes they can also be tabled by the PGA um so they can be proposals draft let's say resolutions at the initiative of the PGA it will be called the PGA text or they can also be draft decisions or resolutions at the initiative of a delegation or a group of delegations who would be the sponsor or sponsors of that delegation. So you'll normally see on the draft resolution at the top you will see the name of the you know who sponsored the resolution there are also resolutions that can come through to the GA through its main committees so you will see sometimes at the top of the resolution it will say referred you know if it has been referred by whichever committee it will specify which committee referred it there are others which may if they have not been referred to the GA through a main committee will be adopted without reference to a main committee so those kinds of specific kind of give you an idea of how the proposal moved through the system to arrive before you and for consideration. Now, there are some sort of guidelines with regards to how proposals are submitted. Rule 78 says that the proposals and amendments shall normally be submitted in writing to the Secretary General, and the Secretary General is expected to circulate these copies to all delegations. And then we have a sentence here that we refer to as in our sort of colloquialism as the 24 hour rule. So if you ever hear a reference to the 24 hour rule, the 24 hour rule, this is where it's situated. It emanates from the language in this rule that says that as a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote at any meeting unless copies of it have been circulated to all delegations not later than the day preceding the meeting. So this is kind of the expectation. And why is this important? Because it also gives you the chance to go through the proposal and also then be able to get instructions from capital as well if needed with regards to how you want to position yourselves with regards to the proposal or the amendment, including whether you have an alternative proposal or proposals or have amendments, even to the amendments or to the proposal. So It's just sort of like, I think, a very good practice, and this, of course, is codified here, but in principle, I think it's just a good way, a good diplomatic overture to acknowledge that, you know, delegations need time. And I think you will hear that sometimes in meetings when maybe a proposal has been submitted less than 24 hours before the meeting or before consideration, or even if it has met that requirement, where delegations or your delegation might think we still need more time because you have maybe the complexities or certain, you know, nuances or maybe because of time differences, that, you know, you're still waiting for instructions from capital or deliberations amongst yourself or amongst a group of countries to be able to arrive at a position on the proposal or on the amendment. So, but generally, it's a good practice, and I think most delegations try, strive to meet this. In instances where it's not possible to meet this 24-hour rule, the discretion is that of the president or the presiding officer who may still permit the consideration of the proposal or amendment prior, you know, without this having been met. But usually what this will happen is it could be It could be just at the initiative of the Presiding Officer, in terms of saying that, for example, I propose that we nevertheless permit the consideration of X, Y and Z, and, if there is no objection, it is so decided. In some instances, there could be an objection, in which case the President would have to rule. As we mentioned before, any ruling of the President is also open to challenge, so there would be a whole little exercise around that to unravel what happens next, depending on which way the decision goes on that. Anything else that you want to say on that? No? Okay. We will fly along. Do you want to take this one on the revisions and amendments?


OLA · Legal Officer [40:50]:

Sure. In the interest of time, of course, you will not only get the slides but have access to the rules themselves. Of course, rules also provide for certain guidance to you in terms of how proposals that would be amending the main proposal are to be considered by the Assembly. So in a sense, most rules that we have just discussed would be also important for that option, should you wish to avail yourself of it, including the 24-hour rule that we have just discussed. One thing that we thought may be important just to highlight, uh, is related to the distinction between the, um, amendment, uh, and a revision, um, maybe if we can offer a simple way of, uh, distinguishing the two. The amendment is something that is submitted to counter the main proposal. And the revision is when your own delegation, let's say you sponsored a draft, and then you wish to make some sort of adjustment. So that would be not an amendment to your own draft, rather it will be a revision to your draft. And that, again, is one of those things that is very easy to see from the document itself, because it will carry a symbol of you know, numbers, and then it will say usually rev 1, 2, 3, or what is the sequential number for the revision that is being submitted. And similarly, for the amendments, they will also carry their own symbol. And of course, the text as well will indicate the relevant information on that front. But in terms of the process, that would be similar to how you would submit a proposal itself. So it's important really to get that as early as possible to the secretariat so that it may be processed in time for the meeting to actually consider it and not trigger the discussion surrounding the 24 hour rule. Yep. Yeah.


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [43:00]:

Okay, so we're not going to bog you down too much. You will see the rules, some of them on the slides. We're not going to touch each and every one of them, but there are certain, let's say, there might be a little bit of truth to what Ambassador Borhan said about chaos, because some of these rules can generate a little bit of chaos. And so, especially here where we are now, when it comes to like, there is a possibility to have a division of proposals. where, or you can also have a situation where the presiding officer has to sort of decide on the order of voting on amendments to a proposal because it can be several amendments, not just by the one delegation, but there may be others, amendments to the amendments as well. So then it becomes a little bit of a an exercise to unpack which one should be considered first. Normally, the understanding would be that the proposals that are submitted first in time are the ones that are usually considered first, but there can always be a change to that. Sometimes, this can be at the request of a delegation, and if the room agrees, this may proceed. It could also be at the initiative of the Presiding Officer. Now for amendments, you have rule 90, you'll see it on the slide, that says that when an amendment is moved to a proposal, the amendment, I will just try to find that for you, is it here? Is it before? There we go. When an amendment is moved to a proposal, the amendment shall be voted on first. And then it goes on. There is a sequence to it that goes on and on and on like that. And you'll see that it can be a little complex, but usually the presiding officers are quite adept at navigating that. And of course, with or sometimes with suggestions from the floor. But then just so it would be good to just maybe, you know, take a little time to study that rule a little bit and, you know, get your head or wrap your head around it. It's. It sounds a lot harder than it actually operates in practice. And so we've actually seen this in real time where it actually proceeds fairly smoothly, unless there are very, let's say, strong, let's say, political sentiments around certain issues. And sometimes it can become a little more complicated. So let's see. Diana already talked about the revision. So, sometimes there is a question with regards to, so once a decision is taken, let's say for example, there's an amendment, there is a vote on the amendment, the amendment carries, then the meeting will proceed to vote on the document as a whole, or the decision as a whole. And once that happens, that is now the property, if you like, of the General Assembly. It's no longer in the hands of the sponsors or whoever made any proposals or anything. So nobody can really come back to it and be like, well, no, actually, I want this instead. It's completely out of your hands at that point. So every sort of proposals, amendments or revisions. You should make sure that you have got it all sorted before the final gavel on the decision as a whole, because after that it becomes the product of the Assembly and that is it. There is one aspect that we did not quite mention with regard to voting, which is that sometimes you might make a mistake. And it's, you know, it happens. We're all human. So you press the wrong button, or maybe you didn't hear the instructions correctly and you press the wrong button. Or, you know, you press the wrong button, let's just say. So what happens, we have seen delegations exercise the option to bring this to the attention of the Secretariat, and then what happens is that The actual official voting sheet, which will generate the results, will remain with the wrong vote that you exercised in terms of whether yes, no, or abstain. But the summary records will be able to then reflect, you know, there'll be an annotation that will draw attention to what your actual voting intention was. Hopefully somebody reads it. And they know that you didn't mean to vote against that resolution that you're actually very much in favor of. So, but it is there as part of the record. And if anybody ever asks, so capital, you can always point to it and say, you know, it's there. We, we, we, this was, we made sure to, to let them know. So very important because, yeah, you all know why it's very important. Okay. So Very quickly, withdrawal of motions. This is, again, part of what we were talking about in terms of making sure that you have got everything in before the final decision is governed. This is also one of the rules that comes up here, where a motion may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before voting on it has commenced, provided that the motion has not been amended. Um, and so, but here's the thing, once you withdraw that motion, it's not yours any longer. So any other member can take that thing that you withdrew and put it right back to the room, and it's fair. So, so, you know, once just be sure that when you're withdrawing, you've gotten, you know, the full backing of the powers that be that this is what you're supposed to be doing because you can't oops about it after that because it's gone. It's not yours anymore. Somebody else can take it up or it just, well, goes and it's no longer part of the of the decision making process. debating. Do you want to just very quickly like one?


OLA · Legal Officer [49:03]:

Yeah, maybe just to mention the session is long and it sometimes may happen that a proposal is submitted on a matter that has already been decided by the Assembly. So of course there is a rule addressing that situation. So the general rule is that when a proposal has been already considered and adopted, it may not be reconsidered unless the General Assembly decides to proceed with that reconsideration. And that's one of those other things that requires that higher threshold of decision making. So two thirds majority would apply automatically. And that is first, you know, to, again, consider when submitting drafts and proposals for consideration to make sure that that rule is respected. And then, of course, in terms of garnering enough support for that to carry forward, that would be the important one to keep in mind. And perhaps we'll leave it at that, but just for you to be aware that that rule is sometimes invoked. And then the next element in the rules of procedure that we just wanted to mention for your attention is, of course, the decisions on competence. There is this saying, maybe it's not exactly the same, but it's the expression that is often used, is that the General Assembly is the master of its own procedure. And The manifestation essentially of that rule, or at least one of them, is rule 79, which again provides for a procedure of the Assembly itself deciding on whether it is competent to consider whatever it is that the motion is being raised against. So it's really, in that sense, open to what the competence may be questioned, the matter related to which the competence of the Assembly may be questioned. And that would be this specific rule that will be guiding the Presiding Officer in then moving this through the Assembly and seeing whether the membership actually agrees that the General Assembly or does not have competence and then based, of course, on… on the outcome of that consideration, the proposal, the actual proposal that was before the Assembly and triggered that question in the first place, it will either then be considered by the Assembly or if there is no competence that essentially makes the question more or less obsolete.


OLA · Senior Legal Officer [51:46]:

Okay, so that is really all from us. There is a lot more we would have loved to share with you if you had maybe a couple more days. to your generous attention, but we know there's also someone also waiting in the wings to bring you some other more interesting information as well. But just to say thank you very much. You've been so attentive and also for participating when I forced you to. And so thanks for being good sports and I hope you enjoyed our presentation. I hope you picked up a thing or two that will help you through the, you know, through the session, through the high level segment for those only here for the high level segment. And I hope you will really appreciate appreciate also the work that UNITAR is doing to bring all of this information to you in readiness for what will hopefully not be too chaotic of a session. And with that, I just say thank you and good luck.


UNITAR · Moderator [52:38]:

Thank you. Thank you, Vita. Thank you, Diana. And thank you for the Office of Legal Affairs for your permanent support. Actually, one of the first ever fellowship programs that UNITAR had since 1968, it was with the Office of Legal Affairs. It was a fellowship program on international law. It used to be called UNITAR OLA Fellowship Program. So, okay, where is Blanca? Blanca, please join us. Thank you. So, Blanka, we were waiting for you impatiently since this morning, since this morning Ambassador Burhan Ghafour mentioned you. Yes, and he mentioned how much you have passion and knowledge in this field. And also he mentioned that you are working on a book, right? I have here a lot of witnesses. So we are looking forward to this book, you know, in the future. But thank you for being. Just, you know, very quickly. You do have, when I speak to some of my friends, they tell me, look, okay, you have the Security Council. It's the primary organ that deals with international peace and security breaches to peace acts of aggression. You have other people who see things from a different perspective. They see the international constitutionalization, balance of power between the principal organs, right? They make reference to the GA as being potentially a projection of a legislative branch on the international level and the Security Council of an executive one. Now, maybe this is an exaggeration that is no longer valid today. However, the link between the GA and the Security Council has always been a mystery. Personally, I always struggled with it. And I know that a lot of persons here in this room came to me asking for more information on this. So please, feel free. Allow us into this world and imagine that we are completely ignorant about this. So start from scratch. Thank you.


UN Secretariat [55:23]:

Thank you. Thank you so much, Ravi. Thank you, Unitar, for inviting me. Thank you all for being here today. I hope I can answer most of the questions. There's not so much mystery to it. It's just a question of hearing somebody telling you the story for the first time, and then you will be able to explore it on your own. I've been speaking about the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly for quite some time in UNITAR. It's a pleasure to welcome you all as fresh delegates to this session. There's a lot of myth and criticism of the dysfunctional relationship, I'd say, between the Security Council and the General Assembly. But the truth is that when you look into it and you try to study technically what the General Assembly and the Security Council are doing together, the results of that analysis I don't think are as negative as the press or the more superficial look at it would like us to conclude. So, I mean, there are two obvious comparisons between the Council and the Assembly. The General Assembly is the universal body of this organization. It has universal jurisdiction. I mean, you heard My colleagues prior speaking about the principle of competence, competence of the organs defining their own jurisdiction. That's that's true for all the principal organs of this organization. That includes the Security Council. And we can speak a bit further. And if you have questions, I'd be happy to respond. That's one aspect. What's, you know, the scope of work, membership, all members versus 15 members. I hope you're aware of the fact that there are five permanent members and then there are ten which are elected in groups of five every year. In terms of power, some would say that the Security Council is more powerful. It depends on the observer, rather, because if you take a look at the charter, actually, the charter gives the Assembly a much broader scope. And the Council's responsibility is the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, so it's a segment of that. Then we will look at more how the interaction works. And then the question of decision making, of course, you've been hearing, Vita, about the votes. How does it work in the General Assembly versus the Council? I'd be happy also to respond to questions about the nine votes, the procedural questions in the Council or not, but I'll be restricting myself today to the interface of where do they interact and how do they interact and how does how does how that has evolved over time. And then in terms of meeting, as you know, or you've observed the program of work of the council now, unfortunately, it's not online due to a disagreement in the council. And I can also explain why that happened. But the Council meets very often, much often than the General Assembly. Historically, also at the foundation of this organization, the concept was of an assembly that would meet only in the main session, the resumed session after January is kind of an evolution also of the success of this organization as well. But the Council, the whole concept was that because it had to deal with peace and security, it was supposed to meet continuously, hence why the Charter also foresees that continuous representation of representatives of the Council here in New York. So we will go over these five main segments that I've defined as being the normative framework, which are the provisions of the Charter that you should be reading. I would recommend to read the Charter much more often than Maybe you have heard. It's a continuous source of wisdom and a continuous source of creativity, which in this day is given the current geopolitical climate, I think that we should draw inspiration from that document and find new ways of doing things with a view of achieving peace, hopefully. Then we will go on to the practice and see how the charter then has been put into practice and how it has developed. As you know, the UN has a series of foundational documents, but the practice is key. And if there is any recommendation, you heard also from my colleagues before, be very, very attuned and make good friends with those who know the practice of this organization, because it will definitely save the day in many, many cases. And then main areas of collaboration that have been, that derive from the provisions in the charter, but also from the practice. And because wisdom is not in one single person, you will see I'll give you, and this slides will be shared with you, I'll give you some resources that you can use, which will make you much more competent than I am, and you'll be able to read them through and find responses to whatever issues you may be facing. So let's start by the beginning. As I mentioned, the General Assembly has a broad scope dealing with all aspects of the Charter, all questions that are dealt with by this organization. And the General Assembly, though, has an ability to have a conversation with the Council. What I mean by a conversation is that the General Assembly can send or can submit or can formulate recommendations to the Council, both in terms of in thematic areas, recommendations with regard to how the Council could do its work, but also in the context of specific conflicts. And the truth is that the General Assembly does so continuously, not necessarily in a widespread manner, in all cases that are before the Council. There is obviously a certain respect to the jurisdiction of the Council, but the General Assembly has that competence, has that ability. And then finally, Article 11, 11.3 is an interesting provision and it is the provision that brings to the attention of the Security Council issues that may create problem for the maintenance of international peace and security. This same power is also in the hands of member states themselves. There's an article in the Charter 35 that does the same. So member states can address letters to the Council and say, look, this situation may be a threat to international peace and security. And it also gives that authority, as you probably have heard, to the Secretary-General. Article 99 of the Charter allows the Secretary-General to bring to the attention of the Council matters that may endanger international peace and security. So the GA has already an open door, so to speak, to speak to the Council and have that relationship, the whole to the sum. Then there's Article 12. So Article 12 of the Charter is an interesting provision and a provision that has, as we will see a bit later, has evolved over time. So the concept at the outset when the organization was founded is that if the Security Council was seized of a certain matter, the General Assembly would not. And so there would be a carve out, so to speak. And so in the early days of the organization, there would be -- that dialogue would become, "I have to delete this agenda item from my list in order for the other organ to be seized," with a view to avoiding -- I mean, it's a rational instinct with a view to avoiding contradictory instructions. We will see that that has changed, and it does not necessarily mean that, if the council is seized of a matter, the General Assembly would not do anything about it. In fact, it has developed, and there has been confirmation that that practice has, in a sense, rewritten or reconceptualized that article by the International Court of Justice itself in an advisory opinion. So then finally, we would go to Article 14, which reflects, it says that subject to the provisions of Article 12, the GA may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation regardless of origin, and it says, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare of friendly relations among nations. So this has been interpreted as a subsidiary responsibility of the General Assembly, also in the maintenance of international peace and security. And as we will see in a moment, it gave a foundation or inspiration to those that found themselves stuck in the 1950s to come up with a GA resolution called Uniting for Peace that you probably are familiar with, that has then led to what you know as the emergency special sessions of the General Assembly. so that the General Assembly can take up that matter and propose means indeed to solve that specific dispute. And now, obviously, we've looked at the General Assembly, but it is also important to take a look at what is the normative framework for the Council itself. So the key provision for the Council in the Charter is Article 24, that defines that the Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It's important to note that it doesn't say that it has exclusive responsibility, it has primary responsibility. Again, the Charter already left the breadcrumbs for those of us that are walking in the shoes of those who founded the organization to decide how we were going to shape this organization so that it could respond to the needs of the time. And then it says also that it shall carry its duties and this responsibility in accordance with the Charter and acting on behalf of the membership, which is another aspect that will also inspire what now the Security Council does vis-a-vis the General Assembly, which is quite broad in terms of its interaction. So let's take a look, now that you know everything about the normative framework of the General Assembly and the Security Council, how do they interact, that history of carving it out. Now we have to look at what is the actual practice and how it worked. So as I say, in the '40s and '50s, a clear delineation. The Council was dealing with something the General Assembly was not, and they would delete agenda items. However, uniting for peace, the Korean War in the 1950s came. And there was a moment where the council got stuck. At the time, the Soviet Union tried to paralyze the council because it disagreed with the measures that were going to be imposed. For a time, it functioned, and the Soviet Union would get out of the council. And so the council was able to pass certain resolutions. But then when it came back, those resolutions would be systematically vetoed. So the General Assembly responded with the adoption of GA Resolution 377A, which is called Uniting for Peace, with a view to, in situations where there's a threat to the peace, that either a majority of the Council or a majority of the Assembly can call an emergency special session and respond to that imminent need of the organization to respond to that threat. And the Uniting for Peace emergency special sessions were given birth, in a sense. You're familiar with both Ukraine and Gaza or the Palestinian question, and we will deal with that in a moment. In addition to that, then, there have been historical moments. I mean, since this 1950s that I described, then in the '60s and '80s, you would see a normal interaction of both the Security Council and the General Assembly with the same items-- Cuba, Southern Rhodesia, Namibia, Angola. There were many items of the agenda on the Council and on the General Assembly's agenda. So it became, it was normalized. And as I said, then eventually even the International Court of Justice recognized that this was a normal development of this provision and of the jurisdictions of each of the organs. So fast forward to 2022. There was a proposal in the General Assembly in view of the fact that a certain threshold was required for the Assembly to be seized in the context of the emergency special sessions. Only there was a threat, there would be then an action or a decision of the membership, either of the Council or of the Assembly to meet in emergency special sessions and take a series of actions. I mean, I don't know how many of you are familiar with the fact that the first peacekeeping operation that was deployed by this organization was actually done by the General Assembly in 1957. So the General Assembly's powers under the ESS, the Emergency Special Sessions, are very broad. However, Uniting for Peace required a certain threshold, a certain threshold of destabilization or threat. So what does the veto initiative bring? What happened in 2022, aside from obviously the question of Ukraine, And this was the culmination of a series of small states, in particular, here is Ambassador Bernaviza from Liechtenstein, who spearheaded this initiative, which was basically to force that any veto, be it of an amendment or be it of any other situation that may not be considered to amount to a threat by that majority of either the Assembly or the Security Council, any veto is brought automatically to the General Assembly for discussion. So, nowadays, whenever there is a veto, and since this resolution was passed, whenever there is a veto, within 10 days of that veto, the Assembly meets and discusses the veto. The member state that has vetoed that decision or amendment or whatever it may be would come before the Assembly and would explain the rationale for vetoing it. Coupled with that, the veto initiative resolution foresees that the Security Council submits a special report that contains, I mean, it's a very bare bones special report that contains the verbatim record of the council's meeting, the result of the vote, and the draft resolution that was vetoed so that the assembly receives some kind of information on what was the veto about. So that has created a new dynamic. I think that probably there was the expectation that maybe that transparency would give rise to a certain deterrent effect and less vetoes. This has unfortunately not happened. However, there is greater transparency and as you have probably heard, there are discussions, or if you haven't heard, I tell you, there are now discussions to operationalize the veto initiative to see what else can be done with regard to these vetoes that happen in the Council in the context of the General Assembly. And then there is the discussion about the more overall discussion and a new proposal regarding Article 27.3 of the Charter. For those who are familiar with it, Article 27.3 of the Charter is the provision in the Charter that provides for the substantive votes in the Council that says that you need nine votes and the concurrent vote of the permanent members. Does anybody know what concurrence means? Does it mean, is an abstention concurrence? If a permanent member abstains, that resolution can move forward? Yay, nay? Well, I'll respond to you because you're very shy today. I'll say yes. An abstention-- and this comes out of a historic interpretation of the charter. An abstention in the council allows a-- of a permanent member allows a resolution to move forward. So you need either the abstention or the favorable vote of all permanent members when there are nine votes. But you need nine votes. Less than nine votes does not carry the resolution forward. But there's a small detail in that article that says if you're a party to that dispute or situation, you shall abstain or you shall not vote. And so that is the question that remains. And many times I get the question as to how does that work. In any event, that is another proposal in the GA to try to clarify the interpretation of that provision of the council. Again, an interaction between the GA and the council, each organ looking at each other and seeing how to move forward the various files. So additional to these kind of exceptional circumstances of vetoes, They are the regular running of the meal of the interaction between both the assembly and the council. And you will see in decisions of the council recommendations to the general assembly and similarly from the security council to the assembly. Also, it's not unnoticed or completely unprecedented that there would be cross referrals or using GA resolutions as basis for action by the council and vice versa. So there is you know, for all the discussion, all the dysfunctional, the, you know, perceived enmity between the two organs, there is a certain level of collaboration. With this, I'm not saying that we're in a perfect world, far from it, but we also have to look at the opportunities that that existing relationship, that actually functioning relationship offers. So, this is with regard to recommendations on thematic questions or recommendations on conflict-specific questions. For example, the General Assembly has not shied away from asking the Council to meet on the situation of human rights in the DPRK or when the situation in Syria was in a different kind of framework, there were also recommendations to the council to deal with aspects of violations of human rights or questions of the political process. So it's not completely unheard of that the assembly would venture into that kind of territory and it's something that the ICJ also recognized, which is that they've drawn a certain invisible line between the two. Also, concurrent work of the Assembly and the Council has happened in the context of the peacebuilding. If you remember the Peacebuilding Architecture Review, there has been a coordinated approach between the Security Council and the General Assembly to pass resolutions that have impact on both. As you know, the PBC, the Peacebuilding Commission, is a subsidiary organ of both. for both the Security Council and the General Assembly. And then for any kind of action, there is a great care or a great deal of attention that is paid by both organs to ensure that their representatives from both the Council and the General Assembly so that if there is any process of review, like it happened in 2025, of the peacebuilding architecture review, there would be identical resolutions passed in the Assembly and the Council. So the same text is adopted at the same time in both the Council and the Assembly, with a view to showing political support, if you will, for a certain way of handling the business of hopefully making peace. So that's with regard to the interaction. This is just a slide for you to see, you know, it's an extract of both the General Assembly's agenda and the Security Council's agenda so that you can see that it is not unusual at all for the Council and the Assembly to have similar items or items that deal with similar situations. And, you know, there are decisions adopted, hopefully not contradictory. And here's of the 11 emergency special sessions that have happened in the history of the organization, eight have been called for by the Security Council. So interestingly, and this is, I may have to underline, the decision to transfer a situation to the General Assembly is subject to a majority of the Council. And the veto does not operate in that context. So even, for example, in the situation of Ukraine that was transferred by resolution 2623 to the General Assembly, there was the vote against of the Russian Federation. And nonetheless, the question was transferred. And now there's an emergency special session. So that's a carve out, a carve out built on the basis of the GA resolution of Uniting for Peace of 1950. Here's just a comparison for you to see the, you know, in kind of a news making Palestine and Ukraine, they've been concurrently seized. They've taken action in both cases. I mean, I'm taking Palestine since the 2023 October 7 situation or recrudescence the situation, but it's an emergency special session that is long-lasting since the 1990s, and this one was called for by the Assembly. In any event, as you can see, there were no Security Council resolutions adopted in the case of Ukraine, only there was a PRST supporting the action of the Secretary-General, and five Council resolutions were adopted. in and you can see that 10 year resolutions were adopted in under the egas of the emergency special sessions on Ukraine and seven in the case of Palestine since those dates. I give to you those numbers so that you can see that in both cases there's action. There are moments where people like Vita and OLF and ourselves find ourselves in a bit of a bind like last year on 24 February. There were concurrent sessions with discussing drafts that were identical or similar or very similar. And both organs have adopted resolutions. And so the question is, what do you do with those? You know, that's where there is a bit of a challenge to this otherwise rosy picture that I'm trying to tell you that there's this dialogue. Those are the moments where there may be a bit of tension because as I mentioned to you at the outset, the Council is operating on behalf of the membership and the membership in its whole is the General Assembly. So you have a resolution or a set of resolutions adopted by the Assembly and then a resolution adopted by the Council and then the question remains, so which is the resolution that operates and what if those two resolutions Unfortunately, they were not totally contradictory, but there were some aspects of those resolutions that could be called into question. So what do you do with those two? It's not an ideal scenario, and that's where the membership should be called to an exercise of their constitutional powers with responsibility. Because this flexibility can lead to a collision between the two organs and a constitutional crisis where you have two sources of law, in a sense, or two sources of authority from a universal organ and an organ that is supposed to act on behalf of the membership. But I don't want to complicate too much the things. I still want to stay with the potential that both organs have if they want to interact in a harmonious manner. So then there are the main areas of collaboration. This goes beyond the peace and security realm, which is the kind of stuff that I handle in the Council. These have to do with the admission, suspension, and expulsion of members. I mean, you are well aware of the fact that there's Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Charter that foresee what to do in those cases. In all cases, the GA decides, but on a recommendation of the Council. both for the admission, suspension, and expulsion of members. In the case of the admission, just a footnote, the Council tends to refer it to a committee for the admission of members, as it has happened with Palestine, and that's the subsidiary organ charged with that function, but the same question remains. It's a recommendation of the Security Council to the General Assembly. On the appointment of the Secretary-General, which is the the interest of the day, I have a slide coming, so we'll speak about it, and I'd be happy to respond to questions, and I don't know who will be the Secretary General. And then on appointment of judges to the ICJ and international tribunals, appointment of ICJ judges, there's a concurrent vote that's governed by the statute of the ICJ. You have concurrent votes, it has to be an absolute majority of both organs, and it's very interesting, it keeps you all, those election officers, very busy, you have to coordinate both organs, and so they have to vote concurrently and there's communication until in both organs the candidates put forward obtain that absolute majority. And on international tribunals, I would mention, I think most prominently, the residual mechanism, which is the mechanism left after the ICTY, ICTR dissolution. The judges are appointed by the Secretary General after the consultation with the President of the Council and the President of the General Assembly. This year is a bit of an unusual situation, I must say. They were appointed despite the Council not having pronounced itself. The GA pronounced itself. So the interpretation of that resolution was interesting, so to speak, this year. And the prosecutor remains not appointed. And then finally, the election of non-permanent members, which is also a very interesting process. This has been affected by the good working relationship between the General Assembly and the Council. So the non-permanent members, the candidates, used to be elected much later than they are nowadays. And the date was moved principally with a view to functioning well with the Council, so that by June, everybody would know who the non-permanent members are, the five non-permanent members. and then they would have enough time to train themselves, become acquainted with everything that would come their way, so that come January, the non-permanent members would have an opportunity to really be ready for the membership of the Security Council. And this simply came about as a result of that kind of dialogue via also the GA Revitalization Ad Hoc Working Group, which has been very important for the development of those working methods. SG selection and appointment, an update for those who need an update, but I presume that since you are coming ready for this session, you all know where things stand. So here, this is, again, a result of a process, principally the 2016 election of Antonio Guterres, that led to a much more progressive approach to the role of the General Assembly. Because while the General Assembly appoints the Secretary General after a recommendation by the Security Council, many voices in the context of the revitalization process were calling for greater transparency, greater participation of the General Assembly. So there has been a concurrent action of both presidents. A letter was sent in November. You may have seen the joint letters of those candidates nominated. There have been informal GA dialogues, as well as a GA town hall. There has been a lot of discussion as to whether the straw polls should happen before or after the GA dialogues, and I would be happy to discuss that portion. And as you probably know, there will be straw polls taking place on Friday this week. It would be the third round of straw polls. The stopples were created as a means of avoiding numerous votes inside the council in the context of private meetings. And that's the way that the council starts building consensus with regard to the candidates. And according to the GA resolution, the expectation is that in the third quarter, we will see a new secretary general being sworn in in the third quarter of this year. So we are fast approaching that deadline. But I'd be happy to deal with more. And then, if you remember that famous Article 24 of the Charter, where there was reference to the primary responsibility of the Council for the maintenance of international peace and security, there's another provision in that article that refers to the fact that there's an obligation of the Council to inform the Assembly of what it's doing. So how does it do it? Through the kind of documentation that I'm listing here. There's an annual notification of agenda items, a summary statement, but most importantly, there's the annual report. So there's an annual report every year from the Security Council to the General Assembly that contains an introduction. The membership always complains, the wider membership complains that that introduction is not sufficiently analytical, that it doesn't give really information about what the council handles. But you have to be mindful of the fact that that introduction is a negotiated document, so it's a negotiated document among the 15 members of the council. So the level of detail is, you know, what intergovernmental negotiations, I'm not telling a group of seasoned diplomats what the results of intergovernmental negotiations are. It's sometimes you have to lower your bar. So that's the bar that the council can produce, and the rest is a series of annexes that feature all the activities of the council so that the General Assembly can know, and that includes also the special reports on the veto initiative. So it's a useful publication. It's not something to read at your leisure. It's something that you read because you need to. But it's helpful to find everything that you need with regard to what the council did on a given year. And then there's increasing collaboration. I mean, here you see the president of the council of the month, Ambassador Bonafon, and the outgoing PGA, Annalena Baerbock. So there's been quite a lot of development in terms of informal practices between the GA and the Security Council. First of all, the monthly coordination meetings. There's a meeting between the PGA and the President of the Security Council. They share, principally the President of the Council, he or she shares the program of work and what is going to happen. Then there's other important elements of the Council coming to the General Assembly. So how does the Council come to the General Assembly? There are the wrap-in sessions when the President comes and tells everyone, so this is what we're going to do this month, these are the issues. And then there's the wrap-up session. The wrap-up sessions used to be very, very stiff in the format of an open meeting of the Council, but it has become a much more interactive, sometimes even panel-like discussion, where you have the President of the Council, sometimes accompanied by other members, And they would respond, I'd say, quite directly to the questions of the membership, saying, well, where's that resolution at? Are you planning on doing something on this? Or what happened evidently within the limitations that you all have, your political limitations and instructions? The annual open debate is another thing to watch in terms of those who want to change things in the council. That is the moment when you can bring new working methods or things that you think that the council could do differently vis-a-vis the rest of the membership. That is where there is an in-depth discussion about things that matter to the broader membership. This year, for example, there was a lot of focus on the SG appointment, of course, but other years, penholdership, which is heavily criticized. Why is it monopolized by certain council members and not open to others? Why is it that, you know, meetings are not open? Why are consultations not followed by a clear, transparent document that allows us to know what was discussed in consultation? So these are some of the examples of the things that are discussed in that context. And then the participation of the presidents. I must say that since these are the last instances of participation of PGAs, the most recent ones, PGA 79, Philomone Young or Annalena Baerbock, both of them have not participated in sessions of the Council, open sessions of the Council. But that doesn't mean that it may not happen. It will happen or not, depending on the Council's, you know, the theme of the discussion, the willingness and availability, but it is not uncommon. It's the participation of the PGA has happened in the context both of thematic, open debates on working methods, for example, or questions of maintenance, more thematic maintenance of international peace and security, on an occasion even on conflict specific matters. With whom else does the Security Council collaborate with the subsidiary organs? I mean, by collaboration, I think it's a bit of a, you know, max mix, I must confess this slide So for example, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the interaction that happens there is most of the times the chair would participate in some of the meetings on the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. And then occasionally and informally, then the president of the council would participate in certain events that have to do either with the celebration of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People or things like that. The Human Rights Council, with the Human Rights Council, the relationship has had its moments. Most importantly, I think that the reports of the commissions of inquiry of the Human Rights Council are taken very much into consideration in certain agenda items by the Council. There have been also attempts to, how should I say, to narrow the gap or to have a more intimate relationship between the Human Rights Council and the Security Council. But that relationship is not yet settled. There are different schools of thought within the council as to what is the role of human rights in the context of the broader jurisdiction of the Security Council, hence why sometimes it's a straighter connection and sometimes it's less, depending on how politically the council is reading that jurisdiction. But no doubt, in recent times, there are references in decisions of the council to reports of the commissions of inquiry. The International Law Commission as of late has played slowly, slowly a greater role. As you know, it's also a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, and some of its representatives have participated in the Council with a view to giving expert advice, so to speak. I mean, they've participated in meetings like in relation to sea level rise, which was brought to the council as a potential threat, as you know. You know many, well, I don't need to explain to any of you what the consequences of sea level rise are going to be for so many nations. But also in the context of the environmental impact of a conflict. And there have been representatives of the International Law Commission coming to the Security Council and speaking. The ACABQ is on occasion referred to. I mean, as you know, and as I mentioned earlier, the budget is decided by the General Assembly, and sometimes you would be surprised by the disconnect between the Fifth Committee and the Security Council, the approval. You come at the time of UNAT, so this kind of empty space does not necessarily mean that there's complete unawareness, and ACABQ has been referred to in some of the decisions of the Council. The Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, and again, a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, there is a subsidiary organ of the Council that deals with peacekeeping, but the reference to the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations has been emphasized by numerous Council members with a view to trying to intensify their relationship with this committee in the context of peacebuilding, but also in the context of mandate reviews. Finally, the Disarmament Commission sometimes is referred to, in this case, I think, in terms of defining what the jurisdiction of the Council is. Should really the Council be dealing with this kind of disarmament affairs or should it be first the Disarmament Commission and then the Security Council? Finally, here's PBC. With the PBC, I mentioned it earlier, there's quite a bit of action, none of which requires any specific instrument, any resolution. The PBC, on occasion, or until 2024, I haven't seen it recently, but it shares the program of work. The PBC also has access, if it requests so, to unedited versions of the reports of the Secretary-General to the Council, with a view to understanding better what the Council receives, and then at the same time, if it is indeed consulted, which happens, as I mentioned in the third bullet, providing written advice to the President of the Council. I mean, there's this discussion in the organization about how do we do conflict prevention, how are we going to enhance it. Many view a narrow relationship with the PBC as the way forward, with a view to really building that famous peace continuum that we're all after, when a peacekeeping operation is done, then something else comes, and then the PBC takes over. So, and then finally, the Peacebuilding Commission Annual Report. This is all hyperlinked, so you will receive the slides so that you can take a look. I mean, the first two are evident, but the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council is a very useful tool, and I'll speak to it in a minute. The Interactive Handbook is a handbook that was done by my division, the Security Council Affairs Division, in cooperation with the government of Japan. And it's a very useful website that contains all references to the working methods of the Council. So you will have all necessary resources in there. I don't have it here anymore, but many people refer to it as the Green Book. It's a Green Book collecting all the working methods of the Council. I could speak for hours about the Council's working methods, and I'll save it for another session with Unitar maybe. But yeah, you can find it there. It's very helpful. There's something called Note 547, which is a compilation of all the practices of the Council. It's a document of the Council, a note, that contains all working methods of the Council up to date. While in the General Assembly you have the Rules of Procedure, in the Council you have the Provisional Rules of Procedure plus note 507. So note 507 is basically the agreements among council members as to how they're going to conduct their business, and it's all consolidated in a note. So it's worth a read for those who are planning on interacting with the council. So we come to the repertoire. This is helpful for, again, these are the yellow pages of the practice of the Council, if you will. This is a publication that dates back to 1946. It started in 1952 at the time when there was an idea approaching the 10-year mark of the foundation of the organization that there would be a review conference. So because the secretariat and the organization was preparing for that, two publications were given birth. One is this one, the repertoire of the practice of the Security Council, and the other one is the repertory of practice of UN organs. So the repertoire of the practice of the Security Council is the responsibility of the PPA of my division, and it's up to date up until 2024, and the 2025 edition is coming out in the coming months, in the coming weeks and months. And so it condenses all the practice and work of the council since 1946. So if you're interested in from the creation of peacekeeping operations to sanctions committees, to how has the council interpreted the binding nature of resolutions, that all can be found in the repertoire. It analyzes only official documents of the council, so you will not find things that are not there, tweets, you will not find press statements. You will find only decisions of the council, communications of the council, verbatim records of the Security Council. And yeah, it's a very useful record for you to better understand how the Security Council functions while you're covering the General Assembly. Additional tools. So, because nobody reads these days and books are not very used, we thought that it was helpful to put out there for the use of delegates and others what we call research tools. So, these are interim products that are helpful and can be found on the Security Council website. On the toolbar, you will see research tools. There are numerous dashboards that systematize from the historic records of all vetoes of the Council since 1946, voting patterns. This is since the end of the Cold War. We are working on reconstructing the record further down. Systematization of all field missions operations. You have a systematization of mandates of field missions operations. You have an analysis of all decisions of the Council that contain language relevant to WPS, protection of civilians, children in armed conflict. You have participation of women in the Council. So all of that you can find in the research tools of the website of the Council. And you can always give us a call if you find any mistake or if you are thinking of developing or need other types of data for your interaction with the council or for your work at the General Assembly. And then separate to those research tools, there's something that you may be less familiar with, which is the Peace and Security Data Hub, is a huge, huge repository of data. of the peace and security pillar that contains all of our data, but many other sets of information that may be helpful for you to better understand that area. And it comes from my colleagues in the Department of Peace Operations and then from other divisions also in the Department of Political and Peace Building Affairs. And then finally, this is not my area, even though I was Deputy Chief of Cabinet in the PJS office in 79 session. This is, these are resources that may be helpful for you with regard to the General Assembly and peace and security. So obviously the two first ones, the UNU handbook has just come out in a new enhanced digital version. And I find it extremely helpful to see the kinds of actions that the General Assembly can take in the event that the council is unable to take those actions. There's precedent almost for everything, from sanctions to peacekeeping to calling for other kinds of political action from the General Assembly that can draw inspiration for others to come. The EGA handbook there, I mentioned, is a handbook on procedure that is very helpful, but no doubt my colleagues in OLA are also a good resource. And then finally, the PGA's website, I would encourage you all to to keep an eye on the PGA's website even if it's not always an official document. I mean, most of the letters are not official documents of the PGA but it's extremely helpful to see what's going on in the general assembly at any given time in addition to the official websites of the GA of course. So, you are all very silent but I hope there's one or two questions if not. I'd be happy to do it offline. Thank you so much. Thank you.


UNITAR · Moderator [1:39:28]:

Thank you. Thank you. Well, I can, with your permission, I can speak on their behalf. They were silent because the information is so huge and so, you know, and it was a long day. We won't have time now, right now, to take questions because we are way over time, but thank you very much. Really, thank you. Is it okay if we share your contact details with all of them? So we are going to do it. Let's hit it straight to the summary. This is my part. I promise you one minute and a half, it's done. So throughout the day, we have looked at different dimensions of the GA from its program of work, elections and rules of procedure to the main committees, protocol and liaison, and the relationship right now with you, Vanka, concerning between the Assembly and the Security Council. We have also touched on some of the practical resources available to delegates as you carry out your work. I would encourage you to take some time to explore the United Nations digital tools that can support your day-to-day work. In particular, the UN transcripts website provides access to transcripts of meetings and statements, while the mandate registry is a useful resource for exploring the mandates of the United Nations bodies and resolutions. These are readily accessible tools that can be particularly useful as you navigate the work of the General Assembly and its various committees. But if there are two things I hope you take away from today, and these are the two things, number one, understanding the system matters. I think by the end of the day, you are now experts and we can invite you as speakers next year to some of our programs, hopefully so. And knowing how the assembly works, how its procedures operate and where decisions are made gives you the foundation to engage effectively for a positive outcome to multilateral negotiations. And this experience you can use outside of the GA in any multilateral conference. Number two, the importance of people in these systems. I think you heard it this morning with Ambassador Ghafoor, who mentioned the need to have multilateralism founded on the ability to listen, to negotiate, to build relationships, and to find common ground among different perspectives. I would also like to once again express our appreciation to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Singapore and the Forum of Small States for the long-standing partnership and support in making this briefing possible. And to all of you, particularly to those who are beginning their work here in New York, I encourage you to carry forward the spirit of curiosity that was mentioned this morning, dialogue and collaboration that we have shared today. At UNITAR, we remain committed to supporting you through learning, training, and capacity building opportunities. Thank you once again. Good luck for the 81st session of the GA and we look forward to supporting you in your work ahead. Thank you and good luck and have a lovely evening.