Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

Part II Practice—Scholarly and Practitioner Accounts of UN Treaty-Making, A International Peace and Security, Ch.7B Creating from Chaos: practitioner reflections on multilateral treaty-making

Danië Prins

From: The Oxford Handbook of United Nations Treaties

Simon Chesterman, David M. Malone, Santiago Villalpando

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved.date: 28 November 2020

Subject(s):
Sovereignty

In practice, negotiations leading to a United Nations treaty are often untidy and anarchic. The ambition to adopt a strong treaty covering the whole UN membership is habitually at odds with the overriding significance of national sovereignty. Unwilling countries, knowing that proponents aspire consensus, can block progress where they deem fit. And that same sovereignty principle plays out in the limited options a chairperson of a conference has for firm process management. The disarray has other origins as well. At treaty conferences, delegates need to develop pockets of informality in which they can build the trust needed for recognition of their most pressing priorities. The abundance of informal exchanges outside the meeting room adds to making process management a challenge. Also, a lack of national resources, and patronage in recruitment, often negatively impact on consistent, knowledgeable engagement by delegations. Last, unavoidable time restrictions prevent the process from playing out in a well-planned, methodical way. Bringing order to this process is only limitedly possible. Multilateral treaty-making seems inherently messy and deeply improvisational. Such a setting tends to reward those countries that can field skilled, creative, resourceful diplomats who can be trusted to make the most from only generic instructions.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.