World

UN Day Oct. 24: Creating an Empowered UN Parliamentary Assembly

by Larry Kazdan | October 22, 2009 at 08:43 pm

270 views | 26 Recommendations | 7 comments

What if a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) could be created that would begin the transformation of the UN from a deliberative forum into a global community?

Since 2007, an international appeal for such an assembly has been endorsed by over 680 current national parliamentarians from 92 countries encompassing all the world's major regions. The Campaign is also supported by many prominent Canadians including John Turner, Lloyd Axworthy, Flora MacDonald, Ed Broadbent and Elizabeth May.

UN Parliamentary Assembly Powers

A UNPA could start as an advisory body -- a watchdog with moral clout -- that reviews the activities of the UN system, spurs needed reforms and nurtures a sense of global solidarity.

Unlike current ambassadors to the United Nations, UNPA parliamentarians could not be fired by governments, would be accountable to citizens, and would be mandated to act according to conscience and the common good.

A UNPA could be created as a subsidiary body by the General Assembly under Article 22 without the approval of the Security Council and without reforming the UN Charter. Until direct elections can be held worldwide, national parliaments could elect MPs to the UNPA according to party ratio.

Mirroring the European Parliament

This would mirror the evolution of the European Parliament where national parliaments served as ‘”electoral colleges” in the Parliament’s early years. Over time, the UNPA could gradually accrue co-decision powers over the the UN Budget, the election of the Secretary General, and the adoption of UN resolutions.

As currently constituted, the UN churns out much talk and files many reports. The addition of a democratic parliamentary body would give the UN more legitimacy to act at a time when millions of lives are at stake and earth's future is at risk.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 03:28 on October 23rd, 2009

In theory this is a good idea and has been talked about a lot in the early 60s and 70s. In reality, we still have too many differences and conflicts in the world to make this a reality.

The original member state of the EU had more in common than there were differences and after years of wars and internal European strife, they realized that a Union was the only way forward.

Canada was an idea which became reality with the original four provinces creating a federal union. As the West opened up those territories were encouraged to join the federation, concluding with Newfoundland in 1949.

Until the world eliminates its differemce and hatred a World Parliament will continue to be a dream.

Larry Kazdan

at 12:48 on October 23rd, 2009

At the end of WWII, after 6 years of intense propaganda, slaughter and devastation, the idea that French and Germans had much in common and could sit in the same European Parliament would have been unthinkable to most of their populations. Yet the Europeans did it anyway. So my response is that not only is a UN Parliamentary Assembly a good idea, but yes we can. Note also that we are starting with a consultative body that can prove its worth before it transforms into a full fledged parliament which would still share co-decision power with the General Assembly and Security Council. There will always be differences; a world parliament will help us bridge and manage them by means other than violence.

israeli.agent

at 12:56 on October 23rd, 2009

Should we get attacked by space aliens to realize the dream of a world parliament?

.Agent.

Hugh Askew

at 13:48 on October 23rd, 2009

Well, this boy is dead agin' any world gummit tellin' me what to do. Just what we need, another level of government telling us what to do, or what not to do.

If the UN is any indication, a governing body at that level is an invitation to disaster. The smaller (relatively speaking) national governments of the world today can't govern what they are supposed to.

What makes anyone, short of the starry-eyed, think that a single entity made up of fallible men, has even a snowball's chance, of governing the world?

Larry Kazdan

at 14:23 on October 23rd, 2009

We have city governments, provincial or state governments and a federal government. We have loyalties to each and would never consider abolishing any of them. There will be no problem with another level which exists anyways in the form of the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the Security Council etc, except these are not democratic. So your choice is to introduce elements of democracy through a parliamentary body or continue with autocratic bureaucracies at the international level.

Uwe Paschen

at 15:38 on October 23rd, 2009

The only way to peace, justice and equality through out the World is true a United World Parliament based on the EU model and going even further then the EU does today.

Larry Kazdan

at 13:17 on October 24th, 2009

The social, economic and security benefits of the EU are so attractive that there are currently 27 members and seven more lining up to get in, desperate not to be kept out. So it only needs to be offered, not imposed. And that is why the modest step of starting a consultative body at the UN is so important - it will start the process and momentum of building a global community where people recognize that all will be better off with institutional methods of co-operation rather than the national rivalries that currently exist. There are too many wars, too many hungry people, too much damage to the environment. The world is too small these days to shrug and say "Too bad - the hole is at your end of the boat".