VZCZCXYZ0003
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1109/01 3371311
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 031311Z DEC 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3245

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001109 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNGA UNGA UNGA
SUBJECT: SIXTH COMMITTEE DIVIDED OVER NEW SYSTEM OF 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 
 
REF: USUN 1020 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  At the conclusion of its sixty-second session, 
the Sixth Committee had yet to reach consensus on a number of 
key issues concerning the legal aspects of the proposed 
reform of the UN system of administration of justice, a 
measure that the UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and 
Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) estimated will cost 56.2 million 
dollars to implement.  In its draft decision (reftel), the 
Sixth Committee deferred consideration of many substantive 
issues it plans to revisit in an ad hoc committee that will 
convene in April 2008.  The General Assembly's Fifth 
Committee (Administrative and Budgetary Questions) began its 
consideration of the proposed reforms on November 8 and may 
resolve some of the issues the Sixth Committee could not. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  In an October briefing to the Sixth Committee, the ACABQ 
Chairman said the full implementation of the new system of 
internal justice at the UN would cost 56.2 million dollars. 
The new proposed system of administration of justice is 
intended to replace the UN's current system beginning in 
January 2009.  By the conclusion of its sixty-second session, 
however, the Sixth Committee had yet to reach consensus on 
many key issues. 
 
¶3.  The Sixth Committee's discussions on the legal aspects of 
the proposed new system of administration of justice centered 
on the scope of the new system, legal assistance for staff, 
the informal and formal systems of justice, and transitional 
measures.  The basic disagreement over how to reform the 
system of justice was between delegations that argued that 
the legal principles of transparency and fairness should be 
given primary consideration without regard to administrative 
and budgetary implications, and those delegations (namely, 
the U.S. and Japan) that argued for reform that reinforced 
transparency and fairness, but also considered the 
administrative feasibility of the Committee's proposals. 
 
¶4.  As to the scope of the new system, the only agreement 
reached in the Sixth Committee was that staff covered by the 
current system of internal justice would be covered under the 
new system.  Beyond this basic agreement, delegations' views 
varied among those arguing to limit access to direct-hire UN 
staff and those advocating a system that granted access to 
any person working for the UN or a UN mission, without regard 
to whether they are staff or non-staff.  Many delegations, 
notably the EU, argued that all personnel categories should 
have recourse to a system of justice.  USUN pointed out that 
contractors and non-staff members had access to justice 
through local remedies, or as stipulated in their contracts. 
In the end, delegations chose to postpone a decision on scope 
and request more information about the different categories 
of non-staff, their access to justice, and the types of 
grievances such employees have raised in the past. 
 
¶5.  The provision of legal assistance to UN staff was another 
contentious issue.  Most delegations felt strongly that 
existing legal assistance for staff should be expanded.  The 
Secretary-General's Report recommended the establishment of 
 
SIPDIS 
an Office of Legal Assistance staffed by 11 lawyers who would 
provide advice and serve as counsel of record on behalf of 
employees involved in litigation against the UN.  USUN was 
most vocal in opposing the Secretary-General's proposal, 
particularly the idea that legal assistance should include 
representation in litigation.  Delegations that favored 
litigation assistance argued the UN system was so unique that 
employees would not be able to hire well-qualified outside 
counsel to represent them in a dispute.  The Sixth Committee 
agreed to support the idea of legal assistance in general 
(consistent with General Assembly Resolution 61/261) with the 
understanding that further consideration should be given to 
how best to enhance the current system. 
 
¶6.  Delegations were able to agree on many issues related to 
the informal system of justice.  Delegations said that staff 
and management should be encouraged to use mediation in 
dispute settlement whenever possible and that access to 
mediation should be made available to all staff members. 
There was disagreement, however, over whether the United 
Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) could refer parties to 
mediation.  Portugal opposed giving the UNDT such authority, 
arguing that the decision to enter into mediation was 
voluntary.  Other delegations countered that granting UNDT 
the right to refer to mediation would facilitate 
non-litigious dispute settlement. 
 
¶7.  The Sixth Committee reserved many elements of the formal 
system of justice for further consideration.  Delegations 
reached general agreement about the desired qualifications of 
judges serving on the UNDT or the United Nations Appeal 
Tribunal (UNAT), and agreed that the General Assembly should 
approve the appointment and dismissal of judges.  However, 
 
 
delegations could not reach consensus on a mechanism for 
compiling a list of judges eligible for appointment. 
Delegations also argued about whether cases before the UNDT 
should be heard by a three-judge panel, or a single judge. 
Most delegates agreed that judges should be appointed for one 
term; however, the Committee could not decide on the length 
of the term, for which suggestions ranged between five and 
seven years. 
 
¶8.  Delegates reached virtually no agreement regarding the 
jurisdiction and powers of the UNDT and UNAT.  A significant 
point of disagreement was whether or not the UNAT should hear 
questions of mixed fact and law, or only questions of law. 
Many NAM delegations supported a UNAT with the power to hear 
both aspects, arguing that this was the only way to guarantee 
a fair second hearing.  Furthermore, proponents of this view 
said the authority to hear questions of mixed fact would 
allow UNAT to consider new evidence and review possible 
errors made by UNDT, as appropriate.  The EU said the UNAT 
should address both fact and law if only one judge considers 
claims in the UNDT, due to the risk that the UNDT judge might 
be biased due to cultural or other factors.  As to 
registries, some delegations said that a single registry 
would be appropriate if the role envisaged for the registry 
was purely administrative.  However, if the registry would 
provide assistance to judges and conduct legal research, many 
delegations would favor a separate registry for UNDT and 
UNAT. 
 
¶9.  The Sixth Committee's conclusion paper on administration 
of justice did not address transitional measures for 
transferring outstanding cases to the new system; however, 
delegations did comment on this issue during the debate.  One 
proposal was to assign the new UNAT with the task of hearing 
cases from the old system until the backlog of old cases is 
eliminated.  Some delegations, however, balked at the notion 
of maintaining parallel justice systems.  Another suggestion 
was simply to transfer old cases to the new system in January 
2009, although some delegations worried that differences in 
the legal standards used to adjudicate cases in the old and 
new system could create problems.  Delegations also raised 
the question of how international organizations that use the 
old UNAT as their administrative tribunal, such as the 
International Maritime Organization, will fit into the new 
system of administration of justice. 
Khalilzad