History of Decision Making in the UNGA

This chapter breathes life into the last chapter by providing more specific history on decision making in the UNGA, with a few examples from the 1990–2000 period of this study. One illustration from recent times came up in the previous chapter: Kofi Annan’s attempt to develop a counter-terrorism strategy. It demonstrated the continuing difficulty of dealing in a forum composed of such diverse views. Annan’s ideas, in line with the UN’s mandate, fell on some deaf ears because of countries that do not hold the importance of human rights in high regard or have a different conception of it. Individuals accused of terrorism, without attendant proof, may not be given fair trials, and demonstrated terrorists may face inhumane treatment or a death penalty upon capture or in detainment,1 all as a consequence of the lack of consensus in the UNGA. In a forum operating on the principles of complex interdependence, the powerful can less often impose their values; post-cold war, the United States is the only military superpower and it, together with its allies, holds human rights dear; a qualification is important here, however, because the United States also violates its own human rights principles when states like Texas impose the death penalty. In any case, the understood military power of the United States is not enough to enforce human rights in the UNGA.