Dear Nicholas,While I have no experience of the OAS, the practice of several organs of the UN, such as the General Assembly, and some UN Conferences must contain many examples of a decision being taken by consensus with one or more members of the body in question indicating they did not support or go along with the consensus and stating that, had a vote been taken, they would have not voted in favour for a stated reason. This seems to be what Canada and the USA did in the OAS. As a former member of a UN Mission in New York, this appears to me to have been a sound course of action from the UN procedural point of view. Practice in the OAS may be different.On a separate point, the findings of the OAS in this case appear to be legal in character and to relate to non-members of the OAS. Normally, legal findings are made only by a body with appropriate jurisdiction over the accused and only after giving the accused the chance to present a defence. Due process, in other words.Kind regards,David AndersonFrom: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">Nicolas BoeglinSent: Friday, July 12, 2013 4:39 PMTo: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]Subject: [INT-BOUNDARIES] Boundaty line between consensus / "disensus"Dear colleaguesThis week at OAS, we assist to an extremely creative exercice: instead of voting a resolution on Evo Morales flight, the text was adopted by consensus.But if we carefully read the text, two food notes of US and Canada delegatiosn appears "dis-joining" from the consensus reached..
See Spansih and English text at this linksżAny precedent in mind of such innovative concept of, let say "dissenting after consensing"?Sincerely yoursNicolas B.