UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY: FIFTH COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 9 March 2005
The Administration of Justice
Statement by David Dutton First Secretary Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations on behalf of Canada, New Zealand & Australia
(Check against delivery)
Mr Chairman,
It is my pleasure today to speak on behalf of Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
The system of administration of justice within the United Nations Secretariat appears to have some serious deficiencies, which manifest themselves, among other ways, in a lack of confidence among both staff and managers.
The absurdly long time taken to resolve cases, the unnecessary complexity of the system, excessive compensation awards in some cases, a lack of means to dismiss frivolous appeals, access to redress for those in the field, and perceived Secretariat conflicts of interest are among the deficiencies facing the system. In addition, some of the decisions of the UN Administrative Tribunal have (perhaps rightly) attracted outside criticism. Moreover, the dysfunction of the system is an impediment to ensuring a strong regime of accountability in the Secretariat for administrative decisions and disciplinary action.
Mr Chairman,
The system of justice needs to provide fair, efficient and timely reviews of administrative decisions and disciplinary actions that properly balance the interests of staff members and the interests of the Organisation. The system must help ensure accountability in the Secretariat. And it should be as simple as possible and transparent to all parties. We will support reforms that advance these objectives.
We do not have a blueprint in mind for how the system should be improved, and want to learn more and see how the debate develops. Nonetheless, we want to offer a few brief remarks about how we will approach this issue.
Mr Chairman,
The scope of the problems in the system of justice appears to require a comprehensive response from the Committee. Certainly, each element of the machinery – and not just its efficiency – must be examined. And, we believe the outcome must also address the problems I enumerated a moment ago. It is a pity, therefore, that the ACABQ has not been able to comment more fully on the system of justice. However, this should not stop us from embarking on a full discussion; we can always seek additional advice should we need it.
We hope to start by developing a better understanding of the causes of appeals. We are interested to learn more about how the Organisation assures that administrative decisions are – in the first instance – well-informed, legally correct and fair. The dynamics of staff-management relations and the frequency of frivolous appeals also warrant attention.
We would be interested in initiatives to reduce appeals over the longer-term. This should be two-pronged: educating managers about their responsibilities, especially regarding harassment and dismissal; and responding to decisions by the UN Administrative Tribunal that expose management weaknesses or inappropriate behaviour by staff.
And, we wonder whether enough attention is paid to redressing problems in the regulations and rules that give rise to frequent disputes and appeals. We think there may be merit in simplfying and consolidating existing UN administrative law.
Informal dispute resolution is, of course, a vital capacity that should alleviate pressure on the appeals system. Greater efforts should be made by the Secretariat to settle disputes informally at all stages of the system, including after unfavourable rulings by the Joint Appeals Board. The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman a few years ago was a welcome step that is already showing results. The Ombudsman should be the primary means of informal dispute resolution and we do not see merit in establishing new mechanisms or panels or giving the Joint Appeals Boards more informal roles.
Turning to the appeals system itself, the OIOS has provided a very sensible report on improving the efficiency of the current mechanisms. The Secretariat has accepted the recommendations that bear on resources but not those that call for tighter deadlines. We doubt that more resources alone will be sufficient: clearly, processes need to be tightened and managers need to respond in a timely manner.
Our deliberations must also encompass the UN Administrative Tribunal and we will seek more information on its work during informals. We believe that the quality of UNAT’s decisions can be improved. We note the Joint Inspection Unit’s recommendations on harmonising the provisions of UNAT’s statute with those of the ILO Administrative Tribunal. The proposal to increase the tribunal’s powers to grant compensation and specific performance warrants attention, as does the request for remuneration, but action on these proposals would need to be taken in conjunction with measures to strengthen the processes and qualifications for selection and appointment of tribunal members.
Moreover, throughout its discussions, the Committee should be prepared to make radical changes if it concludes that they are needed. Indeed, it might prove preferable to design a new system, or replace elements of it, rather than to try to fix all or elements of the current one.
Mr Chairman,
In closing, I simply want to underline the importance of this issue. As you know, in recent months the United Nations has faced considerable criticism for the weakness of its systems of accountability from both inside and outside the Organisation. The system of justice appears to be seriously flawed, and a system lacking the confidence of both staff and management has little to commend it. It should be a priority for this Committee to correct this situation by ensuring that internal justice is efficient, timely and fair, that disciplinary measures are effective, and that accountability is demanded of both staff and managers.
Thankyou.