Established in the United Nations Charter, way back in that post-war year of 1946, the Division for the Advancement of Women firmly rooted the drive towards gender equality in the international agenda. Sixty-four years later, gender equality and the empowerment of women remain on the forefront of the UN agenda, as shown by the recent creation of the new agency: UN Women. This historic, and unanimous, step that was taken by the UN General Assembly on July 2nd of this year stood proof as both a testament to the agenda of advancing gender equality, and also to the necessity of reform throughout the organizations multi-faceted body. 

UN Women will encompass four previous UN agencies, including the Division for the Advancement of Women, the International Research and training Institute for the Advancement of Women, the Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, and the United Nations Development Fund for Women. The responsibilities of these organizations will not be forgotten, but rather consolidated and streamlined under UN Women’s singular governing structure.

The work of UN Women will be guided by prior principles of promoting gender equality worldwide, as described in two prior landmark international conventions – the Beijing Platform for Action and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW. The agency will support inter-governmental bodies, civil society groups, and nonprofit organizations in their formulation of policy and global norms. Additionally, the agency will assist in the implementation of these standards and norms when help is requested by Member States. In the words of   Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro, “UN Women will give women and girls the strong, unified voice they deserve on the world stage. I look forward to seeing this new entity up and running so that we — women and men — can move forward together in our endeavour to achieve the goals of equality, development and peace for all women and girls, everywhere.” 

Interestingly enough, UN Women was unanimously agreed to by all UN member States in a general assembly vote, although the BBC has reported that there were lengthy negotiations.  This is somewhat ironic given the United States’ prominence within the United Nations and its own dubious distinction of being part of only 7 countries out of all 193 that have not yet ratified CEDAW. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has made gender equality and the empowerment of women a top priority – will the Unites States Senate rise to the occasion?

CEDAW is a landmark international agreement that affirms principles of fundamental human rights and equality for women and girls. Much like the recent General Assembly vote, it  will not affect the actual laws of the United States. There are no additional costs or appropriations needed in order to ratify CEDAW – only the support of two thirds of the Senate, or 67 Senators. A vote for CEDAW is not only a vote for women, but a vote to strengthen the United States’ position as a global leader in standing up for the inalienable rights of women and girls. Click here to tell president Obama now is the time to prioritize CEDAW

Nuclear proliferation equates to regional instability and insecurity. We have seen destabilizing situations. Pakistan- India, Iran-Middle East, and the fear of loose fissile material. It’s about time the U.S. change its rhetoric in regard to nuclear proliferation. Unlike the past administration, this administration does not shun the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA has just arrived in Iran to conduct inspections, and the U.S. is finally holding high level talks with Iran on their nuclear program. These talks are being conducted through a multilateral approach --with the support of the Permanent-Five members of the United Nations.  

It is not surprising that Iran and North Korea’s attempts to process nuclear material have led to regional uncertainty and tension. States in those regions feel threatened and often feel the need to counter any shifts in regional power. During the Bush administration, Israel drew up plans to attack a few of Iran’s nuclear sites. Iran has also threatened Israel should it attack any Iranian territory. China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and other powers around the Korean Peninsula feel uneasy. These tensions only fuel our stance that nuclear proliferation is of no benefit to anyone. We still have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.

It is time for the U.S. to set an example. We have taken some steps with Russia to reduce our stockpile, but it is time to do more. We must ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, fulfill our obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty, and must strengthen the IAEA.

On Thursday, July 23, the United Nations General Assembly gathered to debate the responsibility to protect, or R2P, which states that nations have an obligation to protect citizens from mass atrocities if their own government is unable or unwilling to do so. Although R2P was unanimously supported at the 2005 World Summit and the Security Council affirmed their agreement with R2P in 2006 by signing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1674, it remains a disputed issue. 

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon presented a report on R2P before the 192 General Assembly members, which he said was based on three principles: state responsbility; international assistance and capacity-building; and timely and decisive response. While some nations express concerns about sovereignty and many developing countries show suspicions that R2P could be used to justify interventionism, Ban Ki-moon stressed the need "to situate the responsibility to protect squarely under the UN roof and within our Charter, where it belongs." Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and president emeritus of the International Crisis Group, added that R2P "is not the right of big states to anything, including throwing their weight around militarily, but the responsibility of all states to protect their own people from atrocity crimes, and to assist others to do so by all appropriate means."

To read the remarks made at the debate by Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo, U.S. Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs, click here.

World Peace Through Law: Rethinking an Old Theory and a Call for a UN Peace Force

by: James T. Ranney¹ of the Philadelphia CGS Chapter

World federalists make what they view as an airtight argument for world federalism which runs as follows. There are only two ways to resolve true conflict (conflict that cannot be mediated) at the international level: (1) by war (not such a good idea any more, since WWIII would entail the almost certain extinction of at least our species), and (2) by law. Therefore, they say, choose law. And by "law," they mean law that is the only kind worth having, enforceable law, enforceable upon individuals, i.e., world law, created by a global legislature and enforced by global courts and global police, unlike the inadequate currently-existing international "law" and the weak system of UN-based collective insecurity that we now have.²

This article will explore another possibility, that the "law" in the phrase "world peace through law" need not be that of a global legislature, that there are other ways of securing world peace through law, both in the short term and in the long run.

+download the article in its entirety here

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary General of the United Nations and current president of the Egyptian National Council on Human Rights, has called for the creation of a direct, democratic relationship between citizens of the world and the world's international institutions through the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly, a goal that Citizens for Global Solutions has long advocated. He stated that such an assembly is necessary for the strength and expansion of democracy, saying that, in this era of globalization, "democracy within the state will diminish in importance if the process of democratization is not extended to the system of international governance as well.

He also expressed the urgency of this issue, noting the abundance of "problems which can only be solved effectively at the global level" and the threat they pose to democracy. He cited economic concerns at the top of the list.

"The last time an economic crisis of such magnitude occurred, it ... contributed to the rise of fascism, the outbreak of the Second World War, and genocide," Mr. Boutros-Ghali remarked. "During the current global economic crisis, we should not turn a blind eye to this lesson."

Read the full article here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/boutros-boutros-ghali/UN-parliament-global-democracy