Print

Print
Dear colleagues

I share with you a note published in Canada on this issue: 

http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2013/08/08/canada-refused-to-scold-europeans-for-bolivia-prez%E2%80%99s-plane-disruption/44298

It seems fomer diplomats of Canada read the footnote thinking it was an explanation of vote.

Sorry for them, that was no exactly the point !

Sincerely yours

Nicolas Boeglin




2013/7/12 Nicolas Boeglin <[log in to unmask]>
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
 
 
 
żAny precedent in mind  of such innovative concept of, let say "dissenting after consensing"?
 
Sincerely yours
 
Nicolas B.