Andy-Knight

Prévia do material em texto

Adapting the United Nations to a Postmodern Era
Global Issues Series
General Editor: Jim Whitman
This exciting new series encompasses three principal themes: the interaction of
human and natural systems; cooperation and conflict; and the enactment of
values. The series as a whole places an emphasis on the examination of complex
systems and causal relations in political decision-making; problems of knowledge;
authority, control and accountability in issues of scale; and the reconciliation of
conflicting values and competing claims. Throughout the series the concentration
is on an integration of existing disciplines towards the clarification of political
possibility as well as impending crises.
Titles include:
Brendan Gleeson and Nicholas Low (editors)
GOVERNING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Global Problems, Ethics and Democracy
Roger Jeffery and Bhaskar Vira (editors)
CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN PARTICIPATORY NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
W. Andy Knight
A CHANGING UNITED NATIONS
Multilateral Evolution and the Quest for Global Governance
W. Andy Knight (editor)
ADAPTING THE UNITED NATIONS TO A POSTMODERN ERA
Lessons Learned
Graham S. Pearson
THE UNSCOM SAGA
Chemical and Biological Weapons Non-Proliferation
Andrew T. Price-Smith (editor)
PLAGUES AND POLITICS
Infectious Disease and International Policy
Michael Pugh (editor)
REGENERATION OF WAR-TORN SOCIETIES
Bhaskar Vira and Roger Jeffery (editors)
ANALYTICAL ISSUES IN PARTICIPATORY NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Global Issues Series
Series Standing Order ISBN 978-0-333-79483-8
(outside North America only)
You can receive future titles in this series as they are published by placing a standing order.
Please contact your bookseller or, in case of difficulty, write to us at the address below with
your name and address, the title of the series and the ISBN quoted above.
Customer Services Department, Macmillan Distribution Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS, England
Adapting the 
United Nations to 
a Postmodern Era
Lessons Learned
Edited by
W. Andy Knight
Professor of International Relations 
University of Alberta
Canada
Editorial matter, selection, Introduction and Chapter 2 
© W. Andy Knight 2001
Chapter 1 © Roger A. Coate, W. Andy Knight and Andrei I. Maximenko 2001
Chapter 6 © W. Andy Knight and Kassu Gebremariam 2001
Conclusion © W. Andy Knight and Joe Masciulli 2001
Chapters 3–5, 7–16 © Palgrave Publishers Ltd 2001
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of
this publication may be made without written permission.
No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or
transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with
the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,
or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court
Road, London W1P 0LP.
Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this
publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil
claims for damages.
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified
as the authors of this work in accordance with the 
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2001 by
PALGRAVE
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10010
Companies and representatives throughout the world
PALGRAVE is the new global academic imprint of 
St. Martin’s Press LLC Scholarly and Reference Division and
Palgrave Publishers Ltd (formerly Macmillan Press Ltd).
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and
made from fully managed and sustained forest sources.
A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Adapting the United Nations to a postmodern era / edited by 
W. Andy Knight.
p. cm. — (Global issues series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. United Nations. 2. Postmodernism. I. Knight, W. Andy.
II. Global issues series (New York, N.Y. : 1999)
JZ4984.5 .A33 2000
341.23—dc21
00–066871
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
ISBN 978-1-4039-1715-7 ISBN 978-0-333-97777-4 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9780333977774
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2001 978-0-333-80150-8
To Bayan and Nauzanin
Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
Acknowledgements xvi
Preface xviii
Foreword
by Jean Krasno, Executive Director,
Academic Council on the United Nations System xx
Notes on the Contributors xxii
Introduction: Adapting the United Nations 1
W. Andy Knight
Part I Conceptualizing Change in the United Nations
1 Requirements of Multilateral Governance for Promoting
Human Security in a Postmodern Era 11
Roger A. Coate, W. Andy Knight and Andrei I. Maximenko
2 Learning in the United Nations 28
W. Andy Knight
Part II Adaptations of UN Primary Concepts 
and Instruments
3 Collective Security: Changing Conceptions and
Institutional Adaptation 41
Edwin M. Smith
4 Possibilities for Preventive Diplomacy, Early Warning and
Global Monitoring in the Post-Cold War Era; or, the
Limits to Global Structural Change 52
Michael G. Schechter
5 The United Nations and Preventive Deployment in the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 65
Abiodun Williams
6 UN Intervention and Peacebuilding in Somalia: Constraints
and Possibilities 77
W. Andy Knight and Kassu Gebremariam
vii
7 International Criminal Law Enforcement 95
Jarat Chopra
Part III Cases
8 UN Fact-Finding in a Postmodern World: Potential 
for Arms Limitation and Confidence-Building 115
Andrew A. Latham
9 The Future Role of the United Nations in Disarmament: 
Learning from the Iraq Experience 129
Dorinda G. Dallmeyer
10 The Civilian Police Element in UN Peacekeeping: 
The Case of Haiti 140
Julian Harston
11 The Neutralization of Protracted Conflicts: 
The Case of UNTAC 150
Sorpong Peou
12 Pivots of Peace: UN Transitional Operations 163
David R. Black
13 The United Nations and NATO’s War: The Fallout 
from Kosovo 178
Tom Keating
14 Improving the Capacity of the United Nations’ 
Human Rights System 191
Douglas Lee Donoho
15 Environmental Security: Finding the Balance 202
Catherine Tinker
16 Changing the Global Trade Structure: From 
‘Harmonization’ to a New ‘Interface Principle’ 219
Geoffrey R. Martin
Conclusion: Rethinking instead of Tinkering – an Ethical 
Consensus and General Lessons 233
W. Andy Knight and Joseph Masciulli
Index 252
viii Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACABQ Advisory Committee for Administrative and 
Budgetary Questions
ACC Administrative Coordinating Committee 
ACUNS Academic Council on the United Nations System
AG Administrator-General
ANS Armeé Nationale Sihanoukiste 
ANZUS Australia, New Zealand, US Security Pact
ARENA Nationalist Republican Alliance
ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations
ASG Assistant Secretary-General
BLDP Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party
CCAQ Coordinating Committee for Administrative Questions
CCIC Canadian Council for International Cooperation
CCISUA Coordinating Committee for Independent Staff 
Unions and Associations of the UN System
CCSQ Coordinating Committee for Substantive Questions
CCW Convention on Conventional Weapons 
CDP Committee for Development Planning
CGDK Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All 
Forms of Discrimination against Women
CENTO Central Treaty Organization
CERD Convention on the Elimination of All Forms 
of Racial Discrimination
CHR Commission on Human Rights
CIVPOL Civilian Police
CPC Committee for Programme and Coordination
CPP Cambodian People’s Party
CPRC Civil and Political Rights Covenant
CSCE Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
CSDHA Centre for Social Development and 
Humanitarian Affairs
CSTD Centre for Science and Technology for Development
CTC Centre for Transnational Corporations
CWC Chemical Weapons Convention
DAM Department of Administration and Management
DCS Department of Conference Services
DDA Department for Disarmament AffairsDEA Department of External Affairs
ix
x List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
DESD Department of Economic and Social Development
DG Director-General
DIEC Director-General’s Office for International 
Co-operation and Economic Affairs
DIESA Department of International Economic and 
Social Affairs
DK Democratic Kampuchea
DOMREP Mission of the Representative of the 
Secretary-General in the Dominican Republic
DPA Department of Political Affairs
DPI Department of Public Information
DPKO Department of Peacekeeping Operations
DPSCA Department for Political and Security Council Affairs
DTCD Department of Technical Cooperation 
for Development
EADRCC Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre
EC European Community
ECA Economic Commission for Africa
ECDC Economic Cooperation among Developing Countries
ECE Economic Commission for Europe
ECLA Economic Commission for Latin America
ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America 
and the Caribbean
ECOSOC Economic and Social Council
EEC European Economic Community
ENMOD Convention on the Prohibition of Military or
Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques
ESC Economic Security Council
ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia 
and the Pacific
ESCRC Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant
ESCWA Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FMLN Frente Farabundo Mart’ para la Liberacion Nacional
FTA Free Trade Agreement 
FUNCINPEC National United Front for an Independent, 
Neutral, Peaceful and Cooperative Cambodia
G77 Group of Seventy-Seven
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GEF Global Environment Facility
GEMS Global Environmental Monitoring System
GSP Generalized Systems of Preferences
GSTP Global System of Trade Preferences
HABITAT United Nations Centre for Human Settlement
HDM Hisbia Digile Mirfile
HNP Haitian National Police
IAD Internal Audit Division
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction 
and Development
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ICC International Criminal Court
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICORC International Committee on the Reconstruction 
of Cambodia
ICSC International Civil Service Commission
IDA International Development Association
IDDA Industrial Development Decade for Africa
IDS International Development Strategy
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFC International Finance Corporation
IGO Intergovernmental Organizations
ILC International Law Commission
ILO International Labour Organization
IMCO International Maritime Consultative Organization
IMF International Monetary Fund
IMO International Maritime Organization
INGO International Nongovernmental Organizations
INSTRAW International Research and Training Institute 
for Advancement of Women
IPTF International Police Task Force
IRPTC International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals
ITC International Trade Centre
ITU International Telecommunications Union
JAB United Nations Joint Appeals Board
JIU Joint Inspection Unit
JNA Yugoslav National Army
KLA Kosovo Liberation Army
KPNLF Khmer Peoples’ National Liberation Front
KVM Kosovo Verification Mission
LDCs Least Developed Countries
MICIVIH Joint Civilian Mission of the UN and the OAS
MINURCA UN Mission for the Central African Republic
MINURSO UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara
MIPONUH UN Civilian Police Mission in Haiti
MNF Multinational Force
MONUA UN Observation Mission in Angola
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xi
MULPOC Multinational Programming and Operational Centre
MUNS Programme on Multilateralism and the 
United Nations System
MSC Military Staff Committee
NACD Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NAM Non-Aligned Movement
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NFD Northern Frontier District
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIC Newly Industrializing Countries
NIEO New International Economic Order 
NMEs Non-Market Economies
NORDBAT Nordic Battalion
NPT Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
OAS Organization of American States
OAU Organization of African Unity
OCS Office of Conference Services
OD Organizational Development
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development
OERC Office of Emergency Relief Coordination
OGS Office of General Service
OHRM Office of Human Resource Management
OLA Office of Legal Affairs
ONUC UN Peace Keeping Force in the Congo 
ONUCA UN Observer Group in Central America
ONUMOZ UN Operations in Mozambique
ONUVEH UN Verification Mission in Haiti 
ONUVEN UN Observer Mission for the Verification 
of Elections in Nicaragua 
ONUSAL UN Observer Mission in El Salvador
OOALS UN Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea
OPCW Organization for the Prevention on Chemical Warfare
OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
OPL Organization of the People in Struggle
OPPBF Office of Programme Planning, Budget and Finance
ORCI Office of Research and Collection of Information
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
OSSESM Office of Secretariat Services for Economic 
and Social Matters
PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice
PDK Party of Democratic Kampuchea
P5 Permanent Members of the UN Security Council
xii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
PN National Police
PNC National Civil Police
PPBES UN Planning, Programming, Budgeting and 
Evaluative System
PRK People’s Republic of Kampuchea
PSG Police Support Group
RSG Representative of the Secretary General
SAIS Societa Agricola Italio-Somalia
SAU Somali African Union
SDSM Social Democratic Union of Macedonia
SG Secretary General
SNC Supreme National Council
SNL Somali National League
SOC State of Cambodia
SPL Somali Progressive Party
SRSG Secretary-General’s Special Representative
SWAPO South West African People’s Organization
SWAPOL South West Africa Police
SYL Somali Youth League
TCDC Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries
TNC Transnational Corporation
TRIMS Trade-Related Investment Measures
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations 
UNAMIC UN Advance Mission in Cambodia
UNA-USA UN Association in the United States
UNAVEM UN Angola Verification Mission
UNCDF UN Capital Development Fund
UNCED UN Conference on the Environment and Development
UNCHS UN Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT)
UNCIO UN Conference on International Organization
UNCLOS UN Conference on the Law of the Sea
UNCSDHA UN Centre for Social Development and 
Humanitarian Affairs
UNCSTD UN Science for Technology and Development
UNCTAD UN Conference on Trade and Development
UNCTC UN Centre for Transnational Corporations
UNDOF UN Disengagement Observer Force
UNDP UN Development Programme
UNDRO Office of the UN Director Relief Coordinator
UNEF UN Emergency Force in Sinai
UNEF (II) UN Emergency Force (II) Separating Egypt and Israel
UNEP UN Environmental Programme
UNESCO UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xiii
UNFDAC UN Fund for Drug Abuse Control
UNFICYP UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus
UNFPA UN Fund for Population Activities
UNGA UN General Assembly
UNGOMAP UN Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan
UNHCR Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF UN Children’s Emergency Fund
UNIDO UN Industrial Development Organization
UNIFIL UN Interim Force in Lebanon
UNIIMOG UN Iran–Iraq Military Observer Group
UNIKOM UN Iraq–Kuwait Observer Mission 
UNIPOM UN India–Pakistan Observer Mission
UNITAR UN Institute for Training and Research
UNJSPB UN Joint Staff Pension Board
UNMIBH UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina
UNMIG UN Mission in Georgia
UNMIH UN Mission in Haiti
UNMOGIP UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan
UNMOP UN Observer Mission in Croatia
UNMOT UN Observer Mission in Tajikistan 
UNOC UN Operation in Congo
UNOG UN Office at Geneva
UNOGIL UN Observer Group in Lebanon
UNOMIG UN Observer Mission in Georgia
UNOMIL UN Observer Mission in Liberia
UNOMSA UN Observer Mission in South Africa
UNOMSIL UN Observer Missionin Sierra Leone
UNOMUR UN Observer Mission in Uganda and Rwanda
UNOSOM UN Operations in Somalia
UNOV UN Office at Vienna
UNPAAERD UN Programme of Action for African 
Economic Recovery and Development 
UNPREDEP UN Preventive Deployment Force
UNPROFOR UN Protection Force in Yugoslavia
UNRISD UN Research Institute for Social Development
UNRWA UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine 
Refugees in the Near East
UNSC UN Security Council
UNSCEAR UN Scientific Committee on the Effects 
of Atomic Radiation
UNSCOM UN Special Commission
UNSF UN Security Force in West Iran
UNSG UN Secretary-General
UNSMIH UN Support Mission in Haiti
xiv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
UNTAC UN Transition Assistance Team in Cambodia
UNTAG UN Transition Group in Namibia
UNTMIH UN Transition Mission in Haiti
UNTSO UN Truce Supervision Organization
UNU United Nations University
UNYOM UN Yemen Observer Group
UPU Universal Postal Union
US United States
USA United States of America
USG Under Secretary-General
USSR United Soviet Socialist Republic
VMRO-DPMNE Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization-
Democratic Party of Macedonian National Unity
WCF Working Capital Fund
WFC World Food Council
WFP World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WOMP World Order Model Project
WTO World Trade Organization
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xv
Acknowledgements
The seed for this book was planted in the summer of 1991 when I began
a two-year study, funded by the now defunct Canadian Institute for
International Peace and Security (CIIPS), on ‘Reconstructing International
Peace and Security: A Role for Canada in United Nations Reform’. Midway
through this project, I organized a major conference at York University’s
Centre for International and Security Studies (YCISS) on UN Reform Issues
for the 1990s and Beyond. This conference brought together international
relations and international legal scholars, many of whom were members of
the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS). Close to 80
per cent of the chapter contributors to this book attended that 1992 meet-
ing. The remaining 20 per cent were invited at various points over the sub-
sequent years to make contributions to the book. 
First, I would like to thank all the contributing authors for their persever-
ence and encouragement over the life of this project. I am grateful also to
the following people for providing support at various stages of the research
and writing: David Dewitt, Director of the YCISS, along with the Centre’s
personnel – Heather Chestnutt and Steve Mataija (conference organizers),
Kenneth Boutin, Rose Frezza, Rosalind Irwin and Timothy Sinclair; York
University students Sabrina Chung, Steve Feller, Alexandra Gheciu and
Debbie Wehab, who assisted with the organization of the 1992 conference;
my student researchers at both Bishop’s University and the University of
Alberta: Nancy Dhillon, Nina Di Stefano, Sean McMahon, Sasha Orlova,
Duncan Rayner, Sandra Rein and Orrick White. 
A major debt of gratitude is owed to Bernard Wood (former Chief
Executive Officer of CIIPS) and to Mark Heller (its former Co-ordinator of
Research). I acknowledge also with great appreciation the assistance of
Mark Moher, former Director-General, International Security, Arms Control
and CSCE Affairs Bureau in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Inter-
national Trade Canada, during the final phases of the funding of this project.
Administrative aspects of many of the CIIPS’ commissioned research
undertakings were taken over by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Inter-
national Trade (Ottawa). In addition, much of my research could not have
been completed without the help of a number of past and present staff
members of the UN Secretariat who provided relevant and timely informa-
tion along the way. Among these, I would especially like to thank Norma
Chan, Juergen Dedring, Hilmar Galter, Salah Ibrahim, Andri Isaksson,
James Jonah, Angela Uther Knippenberg, Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel,
Georges le Blanc, B. G. Ramcharan, José de Ribes-Gil, Petra Schmidt, Heike
Schulte-Göcking, Michael Stopford, Barbara Sue-Ting-Len, James Sutterlin,
xvi
Sir Brian Urquhart, Layachi Yaker and Mari Yamashita. Howard Adelman,
Leon Gordenker, Keith Krause, Joseph Masciulli, Tim Shaw, Andrew Stritch,
Gerald Tucker and Jim Whitman provided useful criticisms and comments
on various drafts of chapters. Jean Krasno, ACUNS’ Executive Director, fur-
nished a thoughtful foreword for which I am most grateful. Laura Samaroo
assisted me with the index.
Final thanks go to my spouse, Mitra Najaf-Toumeraei, and our two small
children, Bayan and Nauzanin, for putting up with me during the stressful
time when this volume was being assembled. I owe them more than words
can say.
W. Andy Knight,
Edmonton, Alberta
Acknowledgements xvii
Preface
The rationale for producing this edited volume is in part related to what is
generally perceived as a moment of change and transition. All the con-
tributing authors began from the premise that we are living in a transi-
tional era – from modernity to postmodernity. Modernity in the context of
international relations is characterized by the prevalence of forms of ratio-
nalism tending to positivism and materialism and the primacy of the
nation-state, nationalism and realism’s concerns with power balancing in
conditions of anarchy. We were all of the opinion when the research pro-
ject was initiated, and now, that if the trends of interdependence and glob-
alization continue, an era of postmodernity might well replace modernity
in a full sense during the twenty-first century. In the meantime, we felt
that it would be important to reflect systematically on the ways in which
the United Nations has tried to adapt its role and institutions over the past
half-century to this rapidly changing international and global context. In
so doing, we hoped to learn important lessons that could be instrumental
in assisting the organization’s future adaptation. 
The UN system is the object of the research because it is the only univer-
sal governance body and has a mandate to address security problems in the
broader sense of the term. At the same time, this system is obviously expe-
riencing enormous difficulty in coping with the myriad problems, both old
and new, which it faces. Indeed, the challenges are both epiphenomenal
and structural, and it is becoming clear that unless this organization adapts
its mandate, structures and processes to meet the challenges posed at the
end of the twentieth century, there is really little hope of its becoming a
relevant governance body in this millennium. Already we are witnessing
signs that the UN system, despite the euphoric celebrations that accompa-
nied its fiftieth anniversary in 1995, is being bypassed as a meaningful con-
tributor to global, regional and local problem-solving (witness Kosovo).
This troubling situation requires a serious examination of the reasons why
this is the case and what can be done, if anything, to reverse the problem. 
A number of significant studies have been completed since 1995 that
touch on this issue, for example, the Commission on Global Governance
report, the Multilateralism and United Nations System (MUNS) studies spon-
sored by the United Nations University (UNU), the Yale study on UN reform
funded by the Ford Foundation, and Ingo Peter’s edited volume on reform-
ing multilateral institutions. However, many of these studies arrive at 
conclusions about what needs to be done without looking in any meaning-
ful detail at actual cases which demonstrate why the issue of change in 
multilateral institutionalism is so crucial at this particular historical juncture
xviii
and what lessons can be learned about the United Nations’ ability or inabil-
ity to adjust to changing circumstances. It is hoped that the case studies in
this volume will fill that void in the literature.
This book has a strong normativeand critical underpinning. While the
contributors are all committed to multilateral solutions and organizations
and are supportive of the UN system, they have tried to stand outside pre-
vailing understandings of traditional views on the United Nations in order
to reflect on the lessons that can be learned from this organization’s experi-
ence in trying to adapt to the period of transition. In some sense, the vol-
ume will not fit easily within the mould of traditional international
organization or international law texts. Indeed, a deliberate attempt was
made to assemble contributors from these two fields so that a true
exchange and debate could occur across them. Thus, one can expect to
find here an eclectic mix of analyses suitable for a supplemental text in the
political science sub-fields of international relations and international orga-
nization as well as in the discipline of international law. It is hoped that
this feature will be attractive to teachers and students who seldom find this
variety of exchanges in traditional texts.
Finally, this book is considered a companion piece to another work, 
A Changing United Nations: Multilateral Evolution and the Quest for Global
Governance (by W. Andy Knight, 2000) which provides the conceptual
framework for both works. I hope that you will find in both books some-
thing of interest to you whether you are a student, a teacher, a government
or international organization practitioner, or a member of the non-govern-
mental community.
W. Andy Knight
Preface xix
Foreword
As Executive Director of the Academic Council on the United Nations
System (ACUNS), it gives me great pleasure to write a few words in the
opening pages of this important volume which contains chapters by many
members of ACUNS. The contribution of this book at a critical time of
transition is particularly relevant as we use the turning of the millennium
as a focal point for reflection on lessons that we might learn from the past.
This volume is particularly unusual in its interdisciplinary effort to bring
together specialists who not only represent academics and practitioners,
but who are also experts in international relations and international law.
Many editors would not take on the arduous task of blending such dis-
parate points of view into one publication. I commend the editor for his
fine work and his excellent selection of outstanding chapter contributors.
The United Nations, with its nearly universal membership, has become
the focal point of international organization. However, the United Nations
was created over 50 years ago following the devastation of two world wars.
For this organization to maintain its relevance and legitimacy, it will need
to adapt to the changing environment. Yet, as we grapple with the emerg-
ing postmodern world, we realize that profound changes have outpaced
the institutions we have created in the past century to address the needs of
global cohabitation. An erosion in the Cold War conceptual framework
that dominated political thinking in the past has washed us onto the post-
modern shores of uncertainty.
We have just passed through a century full of dichotomies that juxta-
posed Hitler, the dark symbol of aggression and genocide, with Gandhi, the
enlightened beacon of peaceful change. That theme of dark and light per-
vaded the century. Threatened by two world wars, we tried to fashion
global mechanisms to deter aggression, yet the Cold War thwarted the
hopes of a newly created United Nations, tasked with maintaining interna-
tional peace and security. The melting of that Cold War, just a brief decade
ago, brought with it a euphoric vision of a new global order, sweeping
aside the tensions that divided the world into camps, either East or West.
For the United Nations, that fleeting dream eroded into a nightmare as
peacekeepers stumbled in Somalia, hid from Rwanda and were kidnapped
in Bosnia.
It was easy to become cynical, and in our cynicism we neglected to
notice the shape that was emerging from under the fallen Iron Curtain, the
candles that lit the square in Prague, a new power, not military, not eco-
nomic, but moral. Emboldened by information that has no boundaries and
xx
a thirst for justice promised in the tide of democratization that swept
across many parts of the world, people began to demand their rights. This
demand for human rights, galvanized through the United Nations,
brought down apartheid, gave the Namibian people their freedom and
ended a civil war in El Salvador. 
This moral authority energized a new definition of security based on the
individual human being, a security that goes beyond the traditional con-
cept of the territorial integrity of the state. These emerging concepts of
human security, as editor Andy Knight and his co-author Joe Masciulli
describe in the concluding chapter, are eclipsing traditional norms. The
dignity and nurturance of the individual as well as the health and sustain-
ability of the environment are additions to the new security goals. Yet, just
as we begin to focus our sights on individual rights, globalization threatens
to blur our vision. The authors here point out that globalization brings
with it the benefits of shared information and technology, freer trade and
the distribution of resources. But globalization also enables international
crime to thrive, the drugs trade to proliferate, currency traders to wreak
havoc on vulnerable, emerging economies, and terrorists to kill and hide.
These challenges cry out for global mechanisms of effective governance.
Clarity is needed and the excellent collection of scholars and practitioners
brought together in this volume have provided us with important clues
which can guide us to the new interdisciplinary solutions that are needed
to meet the challenges of the new millennium. This book is a thoughtful
contribution to the careful analysis of lessons learned from the past, both
good and bad, that can lead us to greater clarity in finding solutions to
governing an increasingly complex world. 
Jean Krasno
Executive Director
Academic Council on the United Nations System
Foreword xxi
Notes on the Contributors
David R. Black is an associate professor of Political Science and Coordina-
tor of International Development Studies at Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Canada. He has published (with Larry Swatuk) Canada and Southern Africa
after Apartheid: Foreign Aid and Civil Society (1996) and Southern Africa after
Apartheid: Security Issues (1996).
Jarat Chopra, Director of the International Relations Program at Brown
University, Rhode Island, was recently seconded to the United Nations to
head the Office of District Administration for the United Nations
Transitional Administration in East Timor. He is collaborating with the US
Army War College Peacekeeping Institute in the preparation of Pillars of
Peace: A Harmonization Handbook for Peace Operations, and is the author of
Peace-Maintenance: The Evolution of International Political Authority (1999).
Roger A. Coate is Professor of International Relations at the University of
South Carolina, USA. Former co-editor of Global Governance journal, Coate
has co-authored The United Nations and Changing World Politics (second
edition, 1997) with Thomas Weiss and David Forsythe, and International
Cooperation in Response to AIDS (1995) with Leon Gordenker, Christer
Jönsson and Peter Söderholm.
Dorinda G. Dallmeyer is a research director at the Dean Rusk Center for
International and Comparative Law at the University of Georgia School of
Law. A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, she also serves on the
Board of Directors of the Academic Council on the UN System. Her work
focuses on the role of negotiation in areas such as security, trade and inter-
national environmental law. 
Kassu Gebremariam is an adjunct professor at Wayne State University, in
the Department of Anthropology where he teaches Contemporary African
Politics. He has also taught at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. He holds a
doctoratefrom York University and is co-author (with W. Andy Knight) of
United Nations Intervention and State/Society (Re)Building in Somalia: Prospects
for Peace Maintenance (forthcoming).
Julian Harston is Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-
General, United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was the
Representative of the UN Secretary-General in Haiti and Chief of the UN
Civilian Police Mission in that country from 1998 to 1999, Director of the
UN office in Belgrade (1996–97), and Head of Political and Civil Affairs of
the UN Peace Forces in the former Yugoslavia (1995–96).
xxii
Tom Keating is Professor of Political Science at the University of Alberta,
Edmonton. His teaching and research interests are in the areas of Canadian
foreign policy and international politics. He has published essays and
books on Canadian foreign and defence policy, international theory and
international organizations, including Canada and World Order (1993).
W. Andy Knight is an associate professor in the Department of Political
Science at the University of Alberta. He is former Vice-Chair of the
Academic Council on the UN System and currently co-editor of Global
Governance journal. His recent publications include: A Changing United
Nations (2000) and The United Nations and Arms Embargoes Verification
(1998).
Andrew A. Latham is assistant professor in the Department of Political
Science at Macalester College, in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has a PhD from
York University, Toronto. He has worked extensively with the Canadian
Department of Foreign Affairs, as both a research associate and member of
the Canadian delegation to the ‘Inhumane Weapons Convention’ review
conference in Geneva (1994/5). Professor Latham has published in several
leading international relations and international security journals, and is
completing a book on the transnational campaign to ban landmines.
Douglas Lee Donoho is Professor of Law at Shepard Broad Law Center,
Nova Southeastern University, Florida, where he teaches International and
Constitutional Law. He has published numerous articles on human rights
in international law journals.
Geoffrey R. Martin gained his PhD from the Political Science Department
at York University in 1993. Since then, he has taught at a number of
Atlantic Canadian universities and published numerous articles and book
chapters on Global Relations and Canadian politics. He currently is Adjunct
Professor of Political Science at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 
Joseph Masciulli is an assistant professor of Political Science at St. Thomas
University in Canada. He is co-editor of Democratic Theory and Technological
Society (with R. Day and R. Beiner) and author of several articles on
Rousseau’s and Machiavelli’s philosophies of leadership.
Andrei I. Maximenko is an assistant professor of political science in the
Department of Social Sciences at Benedict College, Columbia, South
Carolina. Born in the USSR, he graduated from the Moscow Institute of
International Relations (1986) and served as a diplomatic officer in the
Soviet Foreign Ministry (1986–90) before completing his PhD in
International Studies at the University of South Carolina in 1999.
Sorpong Peou is an associate professor of Political Science/International
Relations in the Faculty of Comparative Culture at Sophia University,
Notes on the Contributors xxiii
Tokyo. Formerly a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
(Singapore), Peou obtained his doctorate from York University, Toronto.
Michael G. Schechter is Professor of International Relations in James
Madison College of Michigan State University. His most recent publications
include the following edited books: Rethinking Globalization(s): from
Corporate Transnationalism to Local Interventions (1999), Innovation in
Multilateralism (1999) and Future Multilateralism: The Political and Social
Framework (1999).
Edwin M. Smith is the Leon Benwell Professor of Law and International
Relations at the University of Southern California Law School. He holds an
A.B. magna cum laude, Harvard University 1972, and a J.D., Harvard Law
School 1976. He served as a fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations
International Affairs (1987–88), and was Special Counsel for Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan (1987–88), Member of the US Science and Policy
Advisory Committee of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
(1995–99), Founding Member, Pacific Council on International Policy and
Chair of the Academic Council of the United Nations System (1996–8).
Professor Smith has also been a Member of the American Society of
International Law since 1984 and was a consultant for the Ford Foundation
Program on International Law and Organizations.
Catherine Tinker practises law in New York City in the areas of environ-
mental and international law and arbitration. She has taught in several
American law schools and has published in a number of law journals.
She holds a Doctorate of Judicial Science in Law in international law from
New York University School of Law and serves as consultant to various
international and national environmental organizations such as the Sierra
Club.
Abiodun Williams is the Special Assistant to the Representative of the UN
Secretary-General in Haiti. He served as Political and Humanitarian Affairs
Officer with UNPREDEP (1994–98) and prior to that was Assistant Professor
of International Relations at Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at
Georgetown University. He is editor of Many Voices: Multilateral Negotiations
in the World Arena (1992).
xxiv Notes on the Contributors
Introduction: Adapting the 
United Nations
W. Andy Knight
Introduction
The debate about adapting the UN system to a rapidly changing world has
reached a crescendo as we enter the new millennium. Can this multilateral
body meet emerging and new demands of the coming era? Is the organiza-
tion making the appropriate adjustments needed to make it a relevant
social institution for the twenty-first century? How has the United Nations
tried to adapt over the past 55 years of its existence? What lessons can be
learned from this adaptation process, particularly over the last decade or
so? Is it not time for scholars and practitioners who are preoccupied with
the issue of global governance to begin to examine and clarify in a system-
atic manner what the role and place of the United Nations ought to be dur-
ing this transition toward a postmodern era?
These questions are important, particularly if one agrees with this book’s
underlying assumption that in so far as multilateralism is an evolving phe-
nomenon, its concrete manifestations (that is, multilateral institutions and
regimes) must periodically undergo change to remain relevant.1
These queries lie at the heart of each and every contribution to this vol-
ume. Individual chapters draw out lessons learned from the laboratory of
recent UN experience in the Charter-mandated fields occupied by this
complex global trans-organization. Out of these specific analyses more 
general lessons are drawn in the conclusion of the book and specific 
recommendations are made with a view towards developing an ethical
foundation for a more effective and relevant United Nations in the future.
Framework of analysis
The following chapters, written by international law and international rela-
tions scholars, examine a number of concepts and issues, themes and cases
which carry implications for UN multilateral structures, processes and
functions as the organization grapples with the pressure to adjust during 
a transitional period – from modernity to postmodernity, between state
1
sovereignty and state transcendence. The book is divided into three parts.
Part I provides a conceptual backdrop for the rest of the study. Part II
analyses a number of issues pertaining to the United Nations’ struggle to
balance reactive and proactive functions. This part also grapples with the
United Nations’ realist and utopian underpinnings in what has become a
bifurcated globalsystem consisting of often competing state-centric and
multi-centric subsystems. The confrontation and intersection of these two
sub-systems are evident in Part III, which examines specific cases given the
current period of transition facing the United Nations.
From the three Parts, readers can draw lessons from the United Nations’
overall experience with adapting its structures, functions and processes to
changing global conditions. Our job, as contributors to the debate about
the United Nations’ future direction, is to elevate the discussion from the
more mundane preoccupation with the tinkering institutional reforms that
dominate the writings and practices related to the United Nations to a more
philosophical and priorities-driven plane on which there is serious contem-
plation of a possible transformation of this organization. The aim is to get
scholars and practitioners to shift gear from a fetishism with Taylorist
reform and reflexive adaptation at the United Nations to a consideration of
a learning strategy with respect to change in organization; from tinkering to
rethinking its normative basis and, consequently, its role in an evolving
global governance.
Part I has two conceptual chapters. The first, by Roger Coate, W. Andy
Knight and Andrei I. Maximenko, explores the requirements of multilat-
eral governance in a postmodern era. The authors observe that the United
Nations is a by-product of a particular historical moment – a moment fun-
damentally shaped by the project of modernity – and, in their view, adapt-
ing this organization to a postmodern era requires more than institutional
reform or reflexive adjustments. They advocate a fundamental rethinking of
the United Nations’ principles and goals not only in light of its inability to
address effectively problems associated with human insecurity and mal-
development, but also because many of the objectivist and universalist
assumptions of modernity, which most UN member states hold, are proving
to be increasingly inappropriate.
Chapter 2 briefly examines the three basic ‘change process’ models
employed in facilitating structural and functional adjustments in the
United Nations. The first two, reform and reflexive adaptation, have been
commonly utilized within the United Nations. The last one, learning, is the
least utilized mode of change in the world body. Yet learning from past
experiences is crucial if the United Nations is to become not only more
efficient and effective, but also relevant in the years ahead. Evidence of
emerging alternative multilateral processes and agencies that rival the
United Nations has brought a greater sense of urgency to the debate over
the methods employed to facilitate institutional change.
2 W. Andy Knight
The five chapters in Part II analyse the primary instruments used by the
United Nations in its quest to fulfil its Charter obligation of managing and
resolving conflicts. These instruments are collective security, preventive
diplomacy, peacekeeping and peacemaking. Collective security refers to
concerted coercive measures (including the use of military force) taken by
members of the international community to halt aggression and restore
international peace and security. Chapter VII of the UN Charter authorizes
such action. Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent incipient disputes
from arising between state parties, to prevent existing disputes from escalat-
ing into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur.
Peacemaking involves action to bring conflicting parties to an agreement.
This can be done through such peaceful means as those included in
Chapter VI of the UN Charter. Peacekeeping consists of the deployment 
of a UN presence in a theatre of conflict, usually with the consent of all the
parties concerned, and normally involving UN military and police person-
nel, as well as civilians in some cases. The peacekeeping instrument expands
the possibility of preventing existing conflicts from spreading. Its expanded
and multifunctional version has led to what is now commonly known as
post-conflict peacebuilding and (the less well-known) peace maintenance.
These five chapters grapple with the blurring of UN functions in the
peace and security realm which has accompanied the period since the end
of the Cold War. Edwin M. Smith looks at the challenge being made to the
assumed verities that have undergirded international relations since the
Second World War. Specifically, he tries to understand the changing 
conceptions and the institutional adaptation that has taken place around
the issue of collective security – the United Nations’ primary concern. In a
similar vein, Michael G. Schechter revisits the concepts of UN preventive
diplomacy and early warning, and recommends a reconceptualization and
adaptation of these roles to suit the post-Cold War environment. Abiodun
Williams brings his ground-level experience with the preventive deploy-
ment experiment in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to bear on
the issue of translating UN rhetoric of conflict prevention into substantive
reality. Clearly, the United Nations’ Preventive Deployment (UNPREDEP)
mission combined political will, timing, traditional consent with a host
country, a clear UN Security Council mandate, an ideal blend of troops and
adequate resources to ensure one of the true successes in recent UN peace
operations. Lessons from this case are potentially useful for other UN oper-
ations. W. Andy Knight and Kassu Gebremariam switch to one of the piti-
ful UN intervention failures – the case of Somalia. They reveal the many
problems associated with that UN mission and use this incident of failure
to address the underlying roots of the conflict in that country to draw out
valuable lessons for both intervention and pre- and post-conflict peace-
building. Jarat Chopra concludes Part II with an astute analysis of the tran-
sition from mere rhetoric and declarations in the area of international
Introduction 3
criminal law to a new concern with enforcement. The breadth of his cover-
age ranges from ad hoc collective mechanisms and civil police operations
under multinational forces aimed at apprehending, detaining, prosecuting
and punishing criminal individuals to the recent creation of a permanent
International Criminal Court along with the mechanisms for underwriting
it. Chopra is very persuasive in his argument that the establishment of col-
lective mechanisms for the enforcement of criminal law is as necessary for
international society as it was for national society. Based on his appraisal,
an opportunity now exists for this ideal to become reality. 
Part III puts empirical flesh on the conceptual bones of the book. Its nine
chapters are rich in detail, broad in issue coverage and critical in disposi-
tion. The primary focus of the case studies presented here is on pre- and
post-conflict prevention and peacebuilding. Peacebuilding is considered a
counterpart of preventive diplomacy. It seeks to construct a new environ-
ment that would forestall violent conflicts and the breakdown of peaceful
conditions.2 Whereas pre-conflict peacebuilding avoids conflicts from break-
ing out in the first place, post-conflict peacebuilding comes into play after a
conflict has come to an end. The objective of this measure is to prevent a
recurrence. Whereas preventive diplomacy offers, in most cases, first aid
solutions to the problem of conflict, pre- and post-conflict peacebuilding
can be largely designed to get at some of the root causes of conflict.
In this final part of the book, we learn important lessons about how and
why the United Nations has failed in addressing root causes of conflict in
the past and about what institutional and functional adjustments are being
made in response to such failure. Andrew A. Latham’s chapter provides a
succinct overview of the evolution of the fact-finding mechanism that was
initially established in the UN Secretary-General’s office to monitor and
investigate allegations of chemicalweapons use and violation of the 1925
Geneva Protocol. For Latham, the UN fact-finding function will have to be
adapted to conditions in a changing global security order. However, current
fact-finding is flexible enough to be utilized as a confidence-building mea-
sure and, with some modifications, it can be applied to various other verifi-
cation contexts such as peacemaking and micro-disarmament. Dorinda 
G. Dallmeyer continues the theme of disarmament by examining the United
Nations’ role in Iraq since the Gulf War. In light of the problems encoun-
tered by the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Iraq,3 her call for well-developed standards,
authoritative interpretive mechanisms, predictability and consistency in the
application of future UN demilitarization and micro non-consensual dis-
armament measures will stand the test of time and will require more than
simple tinkering with UN organizational structures and functions.
The issue of UN civilian police functions has not been given much atten-
tion in the international organization, international relations and inter-
national law literature. Yet, as Julian Harston reminds us, civilian police
4 W. Andy Knight
components have been part of UN peacekeeping missions since the Congo
operations in early 1960. By 1998, about a quarter of UN peacekeepers were
civilian police officers. Ambassador Harston uses his intimate knowledge of
the role of civilian police in the UN peacekeeping operation in Haiti to
elaborate on the lessons learned for future UN civilian policing in attempts
at neutralizing protracted conflicts. The neutralization of protracted con-
flicts theme is picked up by Sorpong Peou as he examines the case of the
UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC). Peou, who was involved
as an on-the-ground observer when UNTAC began its third party interven-
tion mission in Cambodia, critically analyses the role of UNTAC in what
was then an unprecedented mission – expanded, multifunctional peace-
keeping aimed at ‘turning the battlefield into a ballot-box’. His primary
goal is to get the reader thinking about the underlying causes of violence
and to goad UN and government practitioners into developing preventive,
rather than punitive, means of addressing such violence. The solutions
may be considered ‘messy’ but, as we shall see, this is to be expected in the
transition from modernity to postmodernity.
David R. Black’s comparative analysis of UN transitional operations from
UNTAC to the UN Transition Assistance Group in Namibia (UNTAG) is
instructive for both scholars and UN officials who warily watch the ebb and
flow of the success and failure of UN peace operations. Clearly the time has
come for the United Nations to make some difficult decisions about which
peace operations it will become involved in and which ones ought to be
handed over to other bodies. The only way to do this properly is if the orga-
nization ‘learns to learn’ and to do so in a critical, non-self-congratulatory
manner, as Black admonishes. The division of labour with respect to global
peace operations is not something that can be worked out definitively in
advance, as we see from the perceptive and critical chapter by Tom Keating.
Conflicts, such as the one in Kosovo, are by and large sui generis.4 Therefore,
it may not be possible to ‘set in stone’ rules about which multilateral insti-
tution is best suited to address a particular conflict. Keating suggests that
the emerging security environment is one marked by a complex set of rela-
tionships amongst different institutions that have yet to agree upon ‘a 
satisfactory division of labour’. This was nowhere more evident than in 
the war in Kosovo which unleashed a torrent of debate about the legitimacy
of regional organizations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), to speak for the ‘international community’ in civil conflict situa-
tions and about the humanitarianism of non-UN multinational military
operations. Although the precise lessons are difficult to discern in this case,
Keating implies that under the circumstances it would be useful if the vari-
ous multilateral bodies engaged in global governance would agree on a ‘sub-
sidiarity’ principle that can guide their future activity in the peace and
security fields. The author warns, however, that the complexity underlying
civil disputes and human security makes this task even more difficult.
Introduction 5
In light of the events in Kosovo, as well as the tragedy of East Timor and
Rwanda, another difficult task confronts the ‘international community’
and the UN system. What can be done to arrest the massive violations of
human rights we have witnessed in this past half-century? Answers to this
question are normally equivocal because of the tension that exists between
state sovereignty (as traditionally defined) and the obvious need for
humanitarian intervention in several recent cases.5 This problem has
become even more acute at this juncture, as Douglas Lee Donoho notes,
because of the nature of transnational problems facing national govern-
ments. In his chapter on improving the capacity of the UN human rights
system, Donoho argues that the time has come for a systematic assessment
of the capacity of the international human rights machinery to enhance
peace in a postmodern world. The focus on the weaknesses of this machin-
ery allows the author to make specific suggestions about how the United
Nations might strengthen its human rights decision-making capacity, par-
ticularly its ability to determine facts in a credible manner and to give con-
tent to those indeterminate human rights norms that may be essential in
promoting peace.
Promoting peace may also require a serious rethinking of the relation-
ship between humans and the environment. This lies at the heart of
Catherine Tinker’s chapter. Tinker’s attempt to redefine security in a post-
modern context emerges out of the frustration of working within the
‘modernist’ framework so entrenched within the United Nations. Her focus
on environmental security from an international law perspective adds
much to the debate about the need to expand the definition of security
and the appropriate ways of addressing non-military sources of instability.6
Implied in her analysis is the need for major adjustments to international
law and the United Nations’ institutional machinery to accommodate non-
governmental actors in the global environmental policy-making frame-
work. The next chapter by Geoffrey R. Martin deals with changing the
global trade structure during this transitional period and tries to under-
stand what it would take for a body on the periphery of the UN system, viz.
the World Trade Organization (WTO) to become more central to the opera-
tions of the global political economy. For Martin, this would require a shift
away from the harmonization movement in the global economy, endorsed
by liberal theorists enamoured by the seeming inevitability of globalization
forces, towards a new interface principle (as proposed by John Jackson) as a
means of closing the widening gap between real-world economic develop-
ment and the world of neoclassical trade theorists.
Finally, Joe Masciulli joins me in clarifying some of the general lessons
that can be learned from the collection of UN experiences in order to make
specific recommendations on how the world body can be adapted so as to
become more efficient and relevant in the future. The aim of the conclu-
sion is to find an ethical foundation for a fundamentally transformed
6 W. Andy Knight
United Nations. The postmodern era is likely to be characterized by poly-
centricism and politics without a centre.7 What is required in such a
changed socioeconomic and political governance environment is not sim-
ply a further tinkering with UN structures, processes and functions but
rather an overhaul that begins with rethinking the normative and ethical
base upon which this organization was founded. Suchrethinking must
then use a conceptual framework to construct a change mechanism that
would facilitate the needed transformation of the United Nations. Our posi-
tion is rooted in what we call idealpolitik – a mix of critical realism and lib-
eral idealism that might advance multilateralism into the new millennium.
Notes
1. See W. Andy Knight, A Changing United Nations: Multilateral Evolution and the
Quest for Global Governance (London: Macmillan, 2000).
2. A number of studies have been conducted recently on the issue of preventing the
outbreak of violent conflicts and forestalling the relapse into violence. See, for
instance, Roger Fisher, Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Elizabeth Borgwardt and Brian
Ganson, Coping with International Conflict: A Systematic Approach to Influence in
International Negotiation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997); Chester A.
Crocker and Fen Osler Hampson with Pamela Aall (eds.), Managing Global Chaos:
Sources of and Responses to International Conflict (Washington, DC: United States
Institute of Peace Press, 1996), especially Parts III and IV; Michael S. Lund,
Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy (Washington, DC:
United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996); and Tapio Kanninen, The Future of
Early Warning and Preventive Action in the United Nations, Occasional Paper Series,
no. 5, Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations (May 1991). 
3. See W. Andy Knight, United Nations and the Verification of Arms Embargoes (New
York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1998). 
4. See James S. Sutterlin, The United Nations and the Maintenance of International
Security: A Challenge to be Met (London: Praeger, 1995).
5. Kofi Annan, ‘Two Concepts of Sovereignty’, The Economist (18 September 1999),
pp. 49–50.
6. See Karen T. Litfin, ‘Constructing Environmental Security and Ecological
Interdependence’, Global Governance, vol. 5, no. 3 (July–September 1999); Keith
Krause and Michael Williams, ‘Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics
and Methods’, Mershon International Studies Review, vol. 40, supplement 2 (October
1996); David Dewitt, David Haglund and John Kirton (eds.), Building a New
Global Order: Emerging Trends in International Security (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1993); Rob B. J. Walker, ‘Security, Sovereignty and the Challenge of World
Politics’, in Michael Klare and Daniel Thomas (eds.), World Security at Century’s
End (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991); and Jessica Tuchman Matthews,
‘Redefining Security’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 68, no. 2 (Spring 1989).
7. On the latter point, see Vincent Della Sala, ‘Governance of Politics without a
Centre’, paper presented to the SSHRC Trends Workshop, Victoria, BC (13 May
1999).
Introduction 7
Part I
Conceptualizing Change 
in the United Nations
1
Requirements of Multilateral
Governance for Promoting Human
Security in a Postmodern Era
Roger A. Coate, W. Andy Knight and Andrei I. Maximenko
Introduction
In this new millennium, creating the capacity to deal effectively with
poverty, malnutrition, environmental degradation, resource depletion and
other conditions associated with the dual processes of under- and over-devel-
opment stands as one of the greatest challenges for those who profess a com-
mitment to modernism’s promise of ‘progress’ with respect to improving
human well-being worldwide. Despite more than four decades of efforts by
multilateral organizations to promote human security and development, the
well-being of the majority of humankind has not improved significantly
and, in certain important respects, has actually declined. In this regard the
institutional form that we call multilateralism has failed to meet its mod-
ernist objectives and expectations. Accordingly, whether or not one agrees
with the argument that the world is moving into a postmodern era, one of
the most important questions confronting students and practitioners of
multilateralism is: what are the requirements for multilateral governance in
a world where sovereignty, progress and other objectivist and universalist
assumptions of modernity seem increasingly inappropriate or even destruc-
tive to the modernist programme?
Global governance in a postmodern culture
What can one say about a normative emancipatory approach to multilat-
eral governance that tacitly turns a blind eye to the plight of most of
humankind in the name of progress? The main argument presented in this
chapter is that in order to understand the requirements of multilateral gov-
ernance for promoting and sustaining human security we must not only
tell the king he is wearing no clothes, but we must also tell him that his
reign and the assumptions upon which its legitimacy rests are no more
11
than hyper-realist illusion; or to borrow a phrase from Jean Baudrillard, its
emancipatory action script for promoting human security is fraudulent.
What we are saying here is not new, nor is it really postmodern. This
chapter, like many so-called ‘postmodern’ critiques of contemporary
human affairs, is by its very nature embedded with modernist notions. As
François Lyotard points out, ‘The “post”- indicates something like a con-
version: a new direction from the previous one. … Now this idea of a linear
chronology is itself perfectly “modern”.’1 Yet, at the same time, the posi-
tion taken here is that the illusory emancipatory programme of ‘modern’,
liberal, multilateral institutionalism can never be attained in the context 
of modernity and the contemporary, unholy alliance between liberalism,
capitalism and positivist philosophy.
To begin, let us examine modernism’s fundamental assumptions:
1. There is a continuous historical process that is common to all cultures.
2. There are certain universal norms (for example, freedom, equality) that
are governed by reason.
3. History represents a progressive movement towards some advanced state
of affairs (modernity), which is superior to what has come before.
The modern nation-state, sovereignty and the inter-state legal order are the
embodiments of that advanced (modern) state of human social affairs.
Liberalism, capitalism and positivism build on this universalist foundation
and reinforce a pre-eminent role for the individual over the community;
privilege private property as a human right; and legitimate and recreate a
political order of inequality and injustice by promoting a worldview
founded in a Cartesian division of the social order into discrete spheres of
reality. Social constructs are objectified, and predominant social forces of
authoritative value allocation are removed through instrumental rational-
ity from that which is viewed as ‘political’. 
Given this Cartesian logic, multilateral organizations and their role in
global governance have become marginalized and non-emancipatory.
Within the modernist framework, international institutions cannot be
expected to be effective bodies for promoting human security for the
masses primarily because they are state-centric. The main purpose of this
chapter is to examine the possibility, and implications, of making a con-
structionist ‘jail break’ from the modernist worldview in order to demon-
strate the emancipatory potential of multilateral organizations.
From modernity to postmodernity
Nicholas Onuf claims that modernity’s main features crystallized sometime
between 1600 and 1800.2 It is not surprising, then, that it is also from this
era that traditional international relations literature on multilateralism has
gradually emerged.
12 R. A. Coate, W. A. Knight and A. I. Maximenko
Michael Williams, drawing on Benedict Anderson, in general terms out-
lines the ways in which ‘modernity’ embodies a set of categories concern-
ing time, space and their political corollary: sovereignty. According to
Williams, the representations of these categories of experience specific to
modernity are central in coming to terms with the theoretical and practical
elements constitutive in the emergence of the modern state system and its
current internal transformations.In fact, many of the categories we use for
thinking about contemporary international relations and the role of multi-
lateral organizations emerge precisely from this heritage, and they con-
tinue to represent the dominant categories of thinking about global
governance and multilateralism.3
Williams’ position is similar to Anthony Giddens’, who argues that
‘time–space distanciation’ permitted the ‘modern’ state to exert a greater
degree of control over a wider expanse of territory than had been possible
in pre-modern times.4 For example, the ability to utilize administrative and
‘surveillance’ technologies and techniques, to have the knowledge and
material capability to control and protect territory in newly comprehensive
ways, became symbolic of the era of modernity. Modernity as a conceptual
category allowed the political realm to be imagined in ways that were fun-
damentally novel when compared to the feudal period. One example of
this novel thinking can be found in the spatial depiction of community
boundaries in nationalist terms, which took the form of geopolitics within
traditional theories of international relations.5 Spatial metaphors that char-
acterize traditional thinking about international relations are grounded in
the categories of modernity itself.
The reliance on spatial conceptions and representations of political order
also penetrated traditional thinking about multilateral organizations; explic-
itly expressed in a number of principles embodied in the UN Charter.
Principles such as self-determination (Article 1(2)), sovereign equality
(Article 2(1)) and non-intervention (Article 2(7)) all represent a vision of the
nature of the ‘modern’ political world. The emphasis on territorial sover-
eignty, that is, on boundary definition and maintenance, accounts for the
prominence given in the Charter to ‘non-interference in the internal affairs
of states’. 
When one realizes the extent to which conventional categories of under-
standing political life are increasingly unhelpful in illuminating present
events, one begins to appreciate the argument that we are perhaps in a
period of transition between ‘modernity’ and ‘postmodernity’. Central to
this argument are the observations that: within the international political
economy, there is an obvious breakdown of the Fordist–Keynesian model
of national political economies as a result of the globalization of monetary
and production relations; the advent of transnational ‘threats’ (such as
environmental degradation, drug trafficking, AIDS, refugee flows and inter-
ethnic conflict) has penetrated our thinking about ‘security’ and is causing
Requirements of Multilateral Governance 13
us to rethink notions such as sovereignty and boundary lines; the problems
of migration, refugee flows and internally displaced persons are forcing us
to examine the traditional container metaphor which, during the height of
modernity, created clear distinctions between ‘inside–outside’ and ‘us’ ver-
sus ‘them’; an increase in the number of intra-state conflicts that spill over
into threats to regional and sometimes international security has resulted
in a relaxation of some of the rules and conventions against UN interfer-
ence in the internal affairs of states; and, finally, the collapse of some states
and the inability of others to address pressing problems and demands of
their civil societies have led, in part, to a renegotiating of the relationship
between states and civil societies and to a reconfiguration of their respec-
tive roles in national, regional and global governance.
The above are only a few of the more obvious representations of the
beginnings of a shift from ‘modernity’ to ‘postmodernity’. What each item
represents at the broader level is the fact that political space can no longer
be conceived as exclusively within national boundaries as was the case in
the past, and that security and multilateral governance must be redefined
to take into account this conceptual and practical shift.6
Security and multilateral governance
Multilateral systems are generally concerned with security. Security is
defined for the purpose of this study in the broadest sense to include both
traditional and non-traditional notions. This definition recognizes that the
traditional and dominant state-centric conception of security (that is, the
elimination of military-strategic threats to the territorial and jurisdictional
elements of the state) has had to compete with counter-hegemonic concep-
tions of security that are more inclusive, comprehensive and indivisible.7
Security in this transitional period
In this period of transition to a postmodern era, military threats account for
only one category of perceived and real threats to humanity. Robert
Johansen points out that there are several other categories of threat to
humankind, including ‘severe economic insecurity, deprivation of human
rights, and environmental decay’.8 Any postmodern conception of security
has to take these other threats into consideration because these are ‘issues
on which the future conditions of life on the planet may well depend’.9
Thus, today, terms such as ‘human security’, ‘common security’ and ‘com-
prehensive security’ are being utilized to embrace the range of issues that
are being placed on a revised security agenda of an emerging global polity.10
Reconceptualizing security in the above manner implies the need for a
careful rethinking of how the United Nations ought to confront this subject.
After all, its primary mandate is to maintain international peace and secu-
rity. ‘International’ peace and security have generally implied a common
international interest in maintaining peace around the globe. However, in
14 R. A. Coate, W. A. Knight and A. I. Maximenko
postmodern usage they may also imply global interest in peace and security
that transcends (and even contradicts) the more exclusive interests of indi-
vidual sovereign nation-states.11
Traditional multilateralism
The traditional approach to multilateralism is derived from state-centric and
hierarchical understandings of world order and global governance. This
approach takes as given the existing institutionalized forms of cooperation
and usually entertains only incremental and piecemeal changes to those
forms. A key assumption of this approach is that international institutions
somehow maintain an equilibrium in the interstate system through coordi-
nation, formal and ad hoc arrangements, reciprocity and predictability.
Multilateralism, in this view, provides an escape valve at key pressure points
in the history of the interstate system, which in turn allows that system to
function with a minimum amount of disruption and violence.
Keohane (1990) demonstrates this kind of thinking in his nominalistic def-
inition of multilateralism.12 Multilateralism for him is ‘the practice of coordi-
nating national policies in groups of three or more states, through ad hoc
arrangements or by means of institutions’. Ruggie’s more analytic definition
alerts us to the fact that there is more to multilateralism than Keohane’s defi-
nition implies. Ruggie argues that it also embraces certain principles and
norms which order the relationship of states, and that it can be conceived as
‘an architectural form’ or ‘deep organizing principle’ of global society.13
These traditional definitions of multilateralism view it as an activity to
be engaged in by states.14 Since the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia
(1648) until the end of the nineteenth century, multilateral activity was
limited primarily to European states, manifested through such vehicles as
the Concert of Europe (1815), the Congresses of Vienna, Paris and Berlin
(1815, 1856 and 1878, respectively), the London Conferences (1871 and
1912–13), the Berlin Congresses (1878 and 1884–85), the Algeciras
Conference (1906) and the Hague Conferences (1899 and 1907). By the
end of the nineteenth century, multilateralism had evolved to include
activities of a broader range of states throughformal, more permanent,
intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), brought into existence by the self-
same states to facilitate their interactions. Functional public international
unions and agencies, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ),
the League of Nations and the United Nations are examples of key inter-
governmental organizations.
Traditional multilateralism is not just state-centred; it perpetuates the
dominance of states that are in the top strata of the hierarchical state 
system.15 The modernist approach to multilateralism, in accepting uncriti-
cally the existing configuration of state and economic power, opts for piece-
meal reforms to existing institutional structures and processes of multilateral
Requirements of Multilateral Governance 15
16 R. A. Coate, W. A. Knight and A. I. Maximenko
organizations so long as these changes are in accordance with the overall
vision of ‘status quo’ elements. This approach is not sensitive to the impact
of exogenous forces on institutions like the United Nations and tends to
focus more on developing an endogenous incremental and reformist
agenda. In other words, it attempts to adapt the existing multilateralist
framework without questioning the constitutive principles or underlying
ideas of world politics embodied in extant multilateral bodies. However,
it is only through fundamental questioning that a new approach to multi-
lateralism can emerge.
The ‘new’ multilateralism
The ‘new’ multilateral approach begins by questioning accepted multilat-
eral principles, institutions and processes.16 In the transition period from
modernity to postmodernity studies on multilateralization have extended
their scope to embrace the notion of ‘international regimes’ or consensual
practices, developed through common principles, norms, rules and deci-
sion-making procedures, around which certain groups of actors converge in
given issue areas.17 In one sense, this literature signals the fact that multi-
lateral activities encompass more than the operations of formal inter-state
or international organizations. Some regimists note that global governing
arrangements could be found both within and outside formal international
institutions.
Recently we have seen a further broadening of the study of multilateral-
ism to include activities of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).18
Thus, in the present transitional period, multilateralism is undergoing an
evolution, one that has gradually embraced a growing number of actors
(state and non-state) and has broadened the scope of the subject matter of
international organization.19
The concept of multilateralism, revised in the context of postmodernity,
is one that conceives of the multilateral process as a longue durée in histori-
cal terms and views the UN system as representing the institutionalization
of a particular form of world order, viz. the immediate post-1945 world
order. In accordance with this critical view, the UN system is not treated as
a given. Its institutional arrangements are relevant only for a specified
period and must inevitably be adapted, transformed or even radically mod-
ified over time as material circumstances change and prevailing meanings,
practices and purposes are challenged by new intersubjective voices. Failure
to meet the emerging needs and demands of states and civil societies will
mean a loss of relevance for the United Nations. It could also result in the
emergence of rival multilateral instruments to fill the vacuum left by a
marginalized United Nations.
The development of postmodern multilateral instruments can be viewed
as open systems which will necessarily be affected by their broader 
environment. These ‘open systems’ will embody the changing relationships
of power and understanding of the world order at a particular historical
juncture. As international society changes so will there be pressure on multi-
lateral systems to adjust and accommodate to such change. It is also possible
that postmodern changes in the world order may open up new opportuni-
ties for existing multilateral institutions to become transformed or signifi-
cantly altered, creating ‘third generation’ or ‘successor’ organizations whose
task it will be to establish a ‘new’ multilateralism that is more conducive to a
postmodern world.20 As suggested in a series of recent studies on Multi-
lateralism and the UN System (MUNS), a critical approach to multilateralism
is to be preferred to the traditional problem-solving one, especially at this
time of international societal transition, turbulence and change.21
Global governance and the ‘new’ multilateralism
Global governance is used by MUNS scholars as the starting point for
addressing the issue of the nature of multilateralism at this time. The idea
of global governance includes those procedures and practices that exist at
the world (or regional) level for the management of political, economic
and social affairs. This definition is compatible with that of the Com-
mission on Global Governance, which defined governance as ‘the sum of
the many ways individuals, and institutions, public and private, manage
their common affairs’ and as ‘a continuing process through which conflict-
ing and diverse interests is accommodated and cooperative action taken’.22
Institutions in the context of the Commission’s definition can be under-
stood as broadly accepted ways of organizing particular spheres of social
action. ‘Governance’ is distinguishable from ‘government’ and can occur
with or without governmental apparatus.23 Thus, the act of governance can
take place at several different locales – neighbourhood collectives, town
councils, multi-urban centres, stock exchanges, multinational banking cen-
tres, bond rating agencies, municipalities, provincial and national govern-
ments, and at regional, trans-regional and global levels.
Multilateral governance is thus conceived as involving the establishment
of sets of rules and procedures that govern interaction among multiple
forces that become, or are becoming, involved in political issues that
demonstrate global import. Global political issues refer to broad issues
involving the contestation of power and transcending the narrow interests
of states. Developing an approach to multilateral governance without con-
sidering the ‘power’ element in international politics would be a major
mistake. As a recent South Centre study points out: 
in an international community ridden with inequities and injustice, insti-
tutionalizing global governance without paying attention to the question
of who wields power, and without adequate safeguards, is tantamount to
sanctioning governance of the many weak by the powerful few.24
Requirements of Multilateral Governance 17
According to Robert Cox, multilateralism should theoretically be non-hier-
archical.25 However, the traditional practices of multilateralism have been
more hierarchical than non-hierarchical. Therefore, one can correctly con-
ceive of two distinct ideal models of multilateralism. A ‘top-down’ variant
has been the most dominant up to this point and has been used to obscure
dominant–sub-dominant relationships at the international level and to
embed certain ideas and constitutive principles held by the most powerful
members of the inter-state system. The United Nations is primarily a ‘top-
down’ system in that the underlying ideas of great power management and
embedded liberalism are entrenched in that body and have been used by the
dominant member states to maintain control over its important operations
and fundamental structures. Nevertheless, the United Nations has not rem-
ained static since its founding; it has taken on a life of its own in response to
challenges to the dominant tendencies prevailing in that institution.
Indeed, the United Nations has become the locus at which counter-hege-
monic and ‘bottom-up’ forces challenge hierarchical power tendencies. The
MUNS project has declared its normative goal as the empowerment of mar-
ginalized ‘bottom-up’