Dear Nicholas,
In the practice of the UNGA, Resolutions do not have footnotes, but member States can make a statement on the record to the effect that, had a vote been called, they would have voted against or abstained for reasons they explain. This was not unusual in the 1980s and 1990s. The only example I can cite is taken from R. Sabel, Procedure at International Conferences (CUP, 1997), p. 312, who gives the reservation made by an unnamed delegation at the 19th meeting of the Sixth Committee of the UNGA in 1976. The record is in UN Document A/C.6/31/SR.19, paras 53-69. Sabel also cites a UN Secretariat legal opinion that “the term consensus was used to describe a practice under which every effort is made to achieve unanimous agreement,  but that if it could not be done, those dissenting from the general trend were prepared simply to make their position or reservations known and placed on the record.”  The reference is 1974 UN Juridical Yearbook 163, published in 1976. Finally, Sabel cites Amb Galindo Pohl (El Salvador) at the 17th meeting of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (Caracas 1974) who stated that he would have preferred the term “consensus” in the Rules of Procedure “especially if it was defined as an agreement to which there was no formal opposition even if some delegations made reservations or comments.” (Off.Rec. vol. I, p. 44).
My former colleague, Tony Aust, has written about practice, citing the rules of the OECD which define consensus as “the absence of any objection expressed by a representative and submitted by him (sic) as constituting an obstacle to the taking of the decision.” (The reference is A I Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, p. 69.)
Practice may well vary from one body to another. The context is important: something turns on whether the body concerned is a political, deliberative body such as the UNGA, a law-making body such as the LOS Conference, or a judicial or quasi-judicial body.
Kind regards,
David Anderson
 
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Nicolas Boeglin
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] Boundaty line between consensus / "disensus"
 
Dear David
 
Many thanks for reading me and your very kind answer.
 
I firsta asked to some colleagues working in different PM at OAS, but also some of them working at UN in NY and GVA to send me some precise examples of resoluctions having such footnotes (being adopted by consensus).
 
For the moment, their response is "I´ve never seen such a thing", but its is maybe because they have a short experience as diplomats. If you know of one precise resolution inlcuding such footnotes, please let us know.
 
Bolivia seems ready to go before UN and others States ready to support  it (incluidng  - possibly - some UN Permanent Members at UNSC) so we will have all UN members having the possibility to  establish a fact-finding mechanism that includes due process rules

Sincerely yours
 
Nicolas Boeglin


2013/7/12 DAVID ANDERSON <[log in to unmask]>
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 Anderson
 
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank>Nicolas Boeglin
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 4:39 PM
To: [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 colleagues
 
This 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 links
 
 
 
¿Any precedent in mind  of such innovative concept of, let say "dissenting after consensing"?
 
Sincerely yours
 
Nicolas B.