UNITED NATIONS - ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - AD

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000413 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC APER PREL UNGA UNGA UNGA SUBJECT: UNITED NATIONS - ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - AD HOC COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS - APRIL 2008 REF: A. IO/USUN EMAIL (HACKETT/WILCOX)-04/07/08 ¶B. STATE 37257 ¶C. USUN 130 ¶D. 07 USUN 2239 ¶E. 07 USUN 1223 ¶F. 07 USUN 1020 ¶G. 07 STATE 36957 ¶H. 07 STATE 31831 ¶I. 07 STATE 22306 ¶J. 06 STATE 187672 ¶K. 06 STATE 171855 ¶1. BEGIN SUMMARY: An Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly, made up of Sixth (Legal) Committee experts, met April 10-18, 21, and 24 to consider the legal aspects of the reform of the system of justice. The Committee focused on draft statutes for the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and the UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT),which the General Assembly, in resolution 62/228, decided to establish as of January 1, ¶2009. Delegations did not reach consensus on the draft statutes, although many wanted to accept them as drafted or with minor changes so the new system can be operational as of January 1. The Committee agreed to transmit to the Fifth Committee annotated versions of the draft statutes, which reflect various delegations' preliminary comments. The Committee also agreed to recommend that the Sixth Committee convene a Working Group next fall with a view to finalizing its considerations of the draft statutes and to meet informally to discuss the draft statutes before next fall. Those informal meetings will be held May 12-16, June 9-12, and June 30-July 3. END SUMMARY. ¶2. USUN delivered ref A points in the plenary and delivered points drawn from ref B in the Working Group and informal negotiations. Antigua and Barbuda (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China),Australia (on behalf of Canada and New Zealand - CANZ),Guatemala, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union),and Switzerland also made statements in the plenary. ¶3. SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION--UNDT: In question-and-answer sessions, the Secretariat explained that its proposal for the UNDT's jurisdiction was intended to reflect and retain the jurisprudence of the current UN Administrative Tribunal. Arguing that claimants must receive at least the same rights and benefits that the UN Administrative Tribunal would have granted them, most delegations supported the Secretariat's proposal to give the UNDT jurisdiction over claims alleging a violation of terms of appointment or conditions of employment. ¶4. SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION-UNAT: Many delegations, including the EU, Japan, Norway, and the G-77, argued that the Secretariat's proposal to give the UNAT jurisdiction over errors of material fact must be considered together with the question of the number of judges who would consider cases in the UNDT. Many delegations argued that since only one judge normally would decide cases in the UNDT, consistent with GA resolution 62/228, the UNAT must be able to correct the UNDT's factual or other mistakes. Most delegations thought that U.S. proposals to specify when the UNAT could review legally relevant errors of fact and to limit the UNAT to reviewing facts in the UNDT's written record would not sufficiently protect claimants. The EU proposed allowing the UNAT to overrule the UNDT's decisions if it finds that the UNDT "erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision." ¶5. PERSONAL JURISDICTION: Delegations remained divided over the Secretariat's proposal to give non-staff personnel, including consultants and contractors, the ability to bring claims before the new formal system. The G-77 and China, which Egypt represented in the informal negotiations, argued that the language should be retained until information on the need to improve non-staff personnel's recourse to justice is received and considered. Switzerland argued that volunteers other than UN volunteers, interns and type II gratis personnel should be covered by the new system, while the Russian Federation argued that the new system should cover officials other than staff of the Secretariat (such as the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions) and experts on mission who do not serve under a contract as a consultant or individual contractor. The EU argued that the GA should not grant non-staff personnel access to the system now but must commit itself to discussing expanding the system to ensure that non-staff personnel have access to an effective remedy. ¶6. Delegations also remained divided on the Secretariat's proposal to allow the UN's staff associations to bring claims in their own right and on behalf of named staff members. Many delegations that do not have class action lawsuits in their own systems questioned USUN's arguments that, among other things, permitting staff associations to bring class action suits would invite frivolous litigation and expose the UN to significant liability. ¶7. JUDGES: Delegations also presented numerous proposals concerning the appointment of the judges. The EU and CANZ supported a process under which the GA would appoint judges on the recommendation of the Internal Justice Council established pursuant to GA resolution 62/228, whereas the G-77 advocated a process under which the GA would take the IJC's views into account in electing judges. ¶8. TRANSITIONAL MEASURES: Most delegations did not offer views on the Secretariat's proposal to give the new system jurisdiction over cases transferred to it on January 1, 2009 from a joint appeals board or joint disciplinary committee and cases filed before the UN Administrative Tribunal that had not been reviewed as of December 31. USUN argued that the old system should operate in parallel to the new system during a brief transition period, but the G-77 argued that, to protect litigants' rights, the new system should absorb the backlog of cases from the previous system. ¶9. OTHER ISSUES: Delegations presented various proposals and raised many questions on other aspects of the draft statutes. For example, delegations debated whether cases in the new system should be brought against the UN, the Secretary-General, or the UN as represented by the Secretary-General. The EU, Switzerland, and the G-77 insisted that the draft statutes include language, drawn from GA resolution 62/228, requiring the Secretary-General to provide for the travel and related costs of staff and judges. Delegations differed on whether the statute should give the judges discretion to suspend or waive filing deadlines and on how much time claimants should have to file applications. ¶10. On certain issues with direct and obvious financial consequences, many delegations wanted to defer to the Fifth Committee. For example, most delegations seemed inclined to defer to the Fifth Committee concerning whether the tribunals can award interest and litigation costs to successful litigants, as well as costs against a party whom the tribunals determine has "manifestly abused the proceedings before the Tribunal." ¶11. COMMENT: On many aspects of the proposed reform of the system of internal justice for the UN, the U.S. position is significantly at odds with views of other delegations. Japan, Israel, and Australia have indicated that they share some U.S. concerns. Faced with substantial pressure from the EU and the G-77 and the January 1 deadline for the new system to become operational, and reflecting the apparent view that U.S. proposals are too ambitious or too tied to the U.S. legal system, these delegations appear to be prepared to compromise rather block progress. END COMMENT. Khalilzad