REGIONALISM v.

UNIVERSALISM
The debate surrounding regionalism and universalism in international
organizations reflects the old dilemma between centralism and local
governance at the domestic level. Local modes of problem solving are
often seen to be more effecient, to be based on a better understanding
of the specific circumstances and to be better placed to take account of
local peculiarities, cultural or otherwise. Centralist solutions carry the
expectation of a more homogenous, effective and uniform method of
government. Within Nation States the compromise between the two
opposing principles has found its expression in various models of
federalism. The diversity and ongoing evolution of domestic solutions
for the allocation of functions between central and local decision-
makers is a clear sign that there is no simple answer to this basic
antithesis.
The advent of international organizations with global pretensions has
transposed the old dilemma to the international level and has added
some new dimensions. The universal arena is often seen as being too
weak and incoherent for effective action. This has led to calls for a shift
to regional institutions. Conversely, regionalism is said to carry the
danger of fragmentation to the international system. Moreover,
regional superpowers tend to distort or even abuse regional processes
prompting calls for the involvement of a global mechanism with more
'democratic' or egalitarian structures.
In the negotiations surrounding the drafting of the United Nations
Charter, the struggle between universalist and regionalist sentiments
played a prominent role. The Dumbarton Oaks proposal were strongly
dominated by a universalist approach. At San Francisco important
modifications in favour of regionalism were inserted at the insistence of
the Latin American and Arab States. They include the right to individual
and collective self-defense as enshrined in Article 51 and the primacy of
dispute settlement through regional means (Articles 33(1) and 52(2)
and (3)). On the other hand, enforcement action remained under the
overriding jurisdiction of the Security Council (Articles 24, 25, 39-42,
53(1) and 54). Interestingly enough, regional activities in fields other
than peace and security received scant attention and are not regulated
in the Charter.
The Relationship between Universal and Regional Bodies
Cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations has
taken a variety of forms ranging from de facto collaboration to highly
formalized and permanent relationships. The most obvious formal
relationship is observer status for regional organizations with particular
UN organs. The General Assembly has granted observer status to a
number of regional organizations, including the Organization of
American States (OAS) in 1948, the League of Arab States in 1950, the
Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1965, the European Economic
Community (EEC) in 1974 and the conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in 1993.
The status of a regional agency under Chapter VIII has not always been
clear. Some institutions such as the OAS and the CSCE has explicitly
claimed this status. The General Assembly has recognized Chapter VIII
status not only in respect of the OAS and the CSCE but also in respect of
the League of Arab States and the OAU. The Security Council has
actively cooperated also with a number of other regional organizations
invoking Chapter VIII.
The General Assembly of the United Nations routinely singles out
certain regional organizations for praise emphasizing their importance,
expressing the wish for further cooperation and generally commending
their activities. At the 47th and 48th Sessions, resolutions to this effect
were adopted in respect of the OAU, the League of Arab States, the
OAS, the CSCE, the Latin American Economic System, the Asian-African
Legal Consultative Committee and the Southern African Development
Community. In addition to these more visible forms of relationships,
there are numerous other agreements, informal contacts,
communications between Secretariats, mutual attendance at meetings
and exchanges of documents.
The European Community's unprecedented assumption of functions,
hitherto exercised by States, has led to new forms of formalized
cooperation with global organizations. In the UN sysytem proper,
cooperation among the Members of the European Union is close but
individual membership remains unaffected. By contrast, the Community
has all but replaced its individual Members as participants in GATT. The
other GATT Members have informally accepted this succession of a
regional organization to the rights and duties of its members.
This development was taken to its logical conclusion in the relationship
of the European Community to the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). In November 1991, the Community was formally admitted to
membership of the global organization after FAO has amended its
constitution. The individual EC Members retain their respective
memberships in FAO but have to share the exercise of their rights with
the regional organizations.
This brief survey of some types of formalized relationships between
universal and regional institutions is nowhere near exhaustive.
However, it gives an idea of the considerable diversity of arrangements
for cooperation. This diversity is likely to increase further as interaction
becomes more complex. Flexibility is an essential aspect of inter-agency
interaction. However, it should also be borne in mind that the
haphazard and unsystematic agglomeration of various types of
collaboration is not necessarily the most effective way to achieve
results. Well-designed structures of cooperation require careful
planning in order to avoid duplication, waste of resources, unnecessary
competition among institutions and a bloated bureaucracy. Carefully
drafted mandates for cooperation, whether in the legal form of
agreements or otherwise, can add precision in the allocation of
functions, clarify modes of communication and establish clear power
structures, therby facilitating swift and decisive action when the
necessity arises. Unfortunately, international organizations, both on the
universal and the regional levels, have been prone to react to specific
situations belatedly, in a random fashion and without much forward
planning. A clearer conception of future tasks and detailed plans for
synergic action carry considerable potential for the improvement of
cooperation between universal and regional institutions.
The Allocation of Functions Between Universal and Regional
Institutions
Many, if not most, functions assigned to universal institutions are also
exercised by regional ones. The question of an optimum division of
labour to achieve best results as the most intractable problem in the
relationship of universal and regional organizations. Very little can be
said by way of generalization. Different questions require different
answers and a solution that is effective for one area of international
cooperation may not work in another. Therefore, I suggest dealing
briefly with three functional areas separately, namely
• human rights,
• economic cooperation and
• peace and security.
HUMAN RIGHTS: The evolution of human rights has been among the
most dramatic developments in International law in the past decades.
This development has taken place on both the Universal and the
regional levels. In addition to the pertinent UN instruments, bodies and
procedures, Europe, America and Africa have devised important
regional systems. The United Nations have taken a generally positive
attitude towards regional systems supplementing their own efforts in
this area and have at times explicitly welcomed them. The Vienna
Declaration of the 1993 UN World Conference on Human Rights
confirms that regional arrangements should reinforce Universal human
rights standards and endorses efforts to strengthen these
arrangements. It even advocates the establishment of regional and
subregional arrangements where they do not already exist.
ECONOMIC COOPERATION: Economic cooperation has taken a variety of
forms both on the universal and regional levels. In the framework of the
United Nations, development of the world's poorer regions has been in
the forefront of efforts. GATT has served as the primary vehicle for
universal trade liberalization designed to achieve global growth. On the
regional level too, wealth maximisation as well as a more equitable
distribution of resources have been among the declared goals. This has
led to efforts at regional integration but also, at times, to inter-regional
cooperation. This phenomenon of inter-regionalism is complicating
element in that one has to look not only at vertical relationships
between the universal and regional levels but also at the horizontal
relationship between regions.
PEACE AND SECURITY: The interplay of regional and universal
institutions has received by far the most attention in the area of peace
and security. The UN Charter refers to regionalism exclusively in this
context. The basic concept of the Charter is to give priority to regional
agencies or arrangements for the peaceful settlement of local disputes
(Articles 33(1) and 52(2)) with the active encouragement and support of
the Security Council (Article 52(3)). Yet, the powers of the Security
Council are to remain unaffected (Article 52(4)). When it comes to
enforcement action, the role of regional institutions is much more
limited. They may be utilized by the Security Council to carry out
enforcement action under its authority (Articles 48(2) and 53(1)).
However, no enforcement action is to be taken by regional institutions
without the authorization of the Security Council (Article 53(1)). In
addition, regional arrangements or agencieshave to keep the Security
Council fully informed of any activities in the area of peace and security
undertaken or merely contemplated by them (Article 54). Measures of
self-defence under Article 51, whether they are taken individually or
collectively, do not require prior authorization but are subject to
immediate reporting to the Security Council.
THE PRACTICE
a) Peaceful Settlement
Practice in the relationship between regional and universal bodies in
the area of peace and security has undergone significant developments
over the fifty years of the United Nations' existence. In the field of
peaceful settlement, no clear picture has emerged. Initial attempts to
develop an 'exhaustion of regional remedies rule' have not been
successful. The slogan 'try OAS/OAU first' has given way to the principle
of free choice. Division of labour between the Security Council and
regional institutions in the area of peaceful settlement appears to be a
matter of practicability and discretion. Thus, in the context of the
conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the Security Council has repeatedly
encouraged and commended efforts by the European Community and
the CSCE to achieve a peaceful settlement while UN efforts were also
under way.
b) Enforcement Action: The Struggle Over Competences
With regard to enforcement action, earlier stages were dominated by a
dispute over competences between the United Nations and regional
agencies, notably the OAS. The outcome of this process was a gradual
erosion of Security Council supervision over action taken by the regional
organization.
c) Regional Peace-keeping
Another element which has injected uncertainty into the relationship of
the Security Council and regional organizations is the development of
the concept of peace-keeping. Peace-keeping is not provided for
expressly in the Charter. Therefore, there is no clear distribution of
functions between the regional and universal levels.
d) The Security Council's Search for Regional Assisstance
More recent developments are no longer characterized by a dispute
over competences between the regional and universal levels but by a
search on the part of the UN for help from regional arrangements. The
Secretary-General's 1992 Agenda for Peace envisages a division of
labour between the United Nations and regional organizations on the
basis of flexibility and creativity. Regional organizations are to be
entrusted with preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peace-making and
post-conflict-peace-building.
LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE
a) Improved Coordination
A credible international system for the maintenance of peace and
security capable of deterring deviant behaviour must rest on a clear
assignment of functions, on an effective decision-making process and
on binding commitments for the implementation of decisions, once
they are taken. All of this is still very much lacking in the relationship
between the UN and regional organizations in the field of peace and
security.
b) Modes of Cooperation
Instutionalized cooperation between the UN and regional organizations
could take a variety of forms depending on the needs of the Security
Council, on the type of regional organization and on the resources
available to it.
c) Effective Universal and Regional Structures
CONCLUSION
There is no inherent superiority in either regionalism or universalism.
The admittedly difficult task is to apply the best principles of federalism
to international law by trying to find the level best equipped to deal
with a specific problem. Ultimately, the real antagonism is not between
regionalism and universalism but between national sovereignty and
international cooperation. Regional and universal efforts have rarely got
into each other's way but have both been severely obstructed by
nationalism and inward-looking politics of States. An optimum model
involves universal, regional, possibly subregional, national and
subnational elements of administration and governance. Only a
constructive interaction of all these levels carries promise for the
solution of the world's problems.