The meaning of consensus in the context of multilateral disarmament.


Consensus is generally understood as a decision-making procedure characterized by the absence of objection. In multilateral disarmament negotiations, however, “consensus” carries a particular nuance that distinguishes it from “unanimity”. In practical terms, consensus is reached when no State formally objects to a decision, including by requesting a vote. Importantly, “joining consensus” does not necessarily mean that a State agrees with every element of the text or outcome. It is entirely possible — and often the case — that a State joins consensus to adopt the text while maintaining specific reservations or substantive concerns. In this context, “explanations of vote” are an important tool for making consensus work in practice, allowing States to place reservations on the record without rejecting the outcome as a whole (see box 4). Explanations of vote may also be used to clarify why a State voted against a decision or chose to abstain. In some instances, States explicitly note that, although they do not agree with every element of an outcome document, they were willing to make concessions in the interest of achieving consensus. Such statements are common in negotiated outcomes, including in the First Committee of the General Assembly, where a State may join consensus on a specific resolution or decision while expressing concern over specific content. In the General Assembly, explanations of vote may be delivered both before and after action, giving States ample opportunity to provide context and articulate caveats to their positions. Consensus outcomes in United Nations disarmament negotiations are often treated as sources of “agreed language” that can be reused in later processes without further negotiation. Reliance on previously agreed language is common in follow-up and review mechanisms,8 particularly when a more progressive text cannot be agreed upon by consensus. At the same time, challenges have emerged when language previously accepted by consensus is later contested by some States as no longer acceptable.




“The United Kingdom and France have joined consensus on this resolution [entitled ‘The relationship between disarmament and development’]. We support the mainstreaming of disarmament issues in development policy, particularly in the field of conventional weapons, small arms and light weapons and disarmament, demobilization and reintegration. That said, we feel it necessary to make our position clear on other aspects of this text: The notion of a ‘symbiotic relationship’ between disarmament and development appears questionable to us as the conditions conducive to disarmament are not necessarily dependent on development only, as seen with the growing military expenditure of some developing countries. “ There is no automatic link between the two but rather a complex relationship that this notion does not accurately capture.”

Location: 405 E 45th St, New York, NY 10017, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A hazard to human rights: autonomous weapons systems and digital decision-making.

Image
Featuring a presentation of a new report by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, and speakers from Stop Killer Robots , Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, this side event will examine the human rights implications of autonomous weapons systems and the urgent need for a legally binding instrument containing prohibitions on both antipersonnel systems and systems that do not allow for meaningful human control , alongside other regulations to govern the design, development, and use of other autonomous weapons systems . The side event will additionally explore examples and impacts of component technologies such as remote biometric surveillance and predictive tools, already in use, and the implications of their use within autonomous weapons systems on human rights . Watch a hazard to human rights: autonomous weapons systems and digital decision-making!
Read more

(3rd plenary meeting) Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Image
Adopted in 2017 and having entered into force in 2020, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons includes a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities, as well as positive obligations related, inter alia, to victim and affected communities. The third Meeting of States will bring together States Parties and observers, including governments, international organizations and civil society. The third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will be held at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 3 to 7 March 2025 Watch the (3rd plenary meeting) Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons!
Read more

What is an arms broker and what are arms brokering activities?

Image
Brokers can play an important role in facilitating or acting as intermediaries in the legitimate conventional arms trade . The phenomenon of individuals and companies facilitating and arranging arms deals between states and between states and arms producers – for example, bringing sellers and buyers together – is not new. However, since the 1990s, and particularly in conflicts in Angola and West Africa, high-profile cases and popular culture have raised greater awareness of arms brokering . This applies in particular to the way in which some unscrupulous brokers are actively engaged in the diversion and illicit trade inconventional arms , including small arms and light weapons (SALW) , and ammunition to or between unauthorized (end-) users – including criminals, pirates, non-state armed groups (NSAGs) and groups listed as terrorist groups  and their procurement networks. The fact that such entities were not explicitly controlled or regulated by modern transfer control systems...
Read more