GOOD GOVERNANCE AND MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY … · GOOD GOVERNANCE AND MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY By ... (6) Under such ... consonant with the imperatives of good governance.

GOOD GOVERNANCE AND MULTILATERALDIPLOMACY

By

Dr. Ioan Voicu*

Abstract

Good governance is a crucialelement of the global struggle forsustainable development and peace.The United Nations MillenniumDeclaration of 8 September 2000stipulates that success in meeting thekey objectives of the current centurydepends, inter alia, on goodgovernance within each country and atthe international level. The articleanalyzes the specific contribution ofmultilateral diplomacy in promoting

good governance as an attribute ofdemocracy, as well as its correlationwith global solidarity and partnership.The catalytic role of multilateraldiplomacy in this field is closelyconnected with the very essence ofuniversal values to which goodgovernance is expected to givetangibility at national and global levels.The author shares the legitimateappeals made by the United Nations infavour of good governance, solidarityand global partnerships and comes tothe conclusion that by their active

* Doctor in political sciences, (international law) of Geneva University (1968); doctor honoris causain international law of Assumption University of Thailand (1998); alternate representative ofRomania to the United Nations Security Council (1990-1991); ambassador of Romania to theKingdom of Thailand and permanent representative to international organizations based in Bangkok

(1994-1999); visiting professor in Assumption University of Thailand since February 2000.

advancement multilateral diplomacycan become more instrumental inmeeting the central challenge of thecontemporary world to ensure that theirreversible process of globalizationbecomes a positive force for allhumankind.

One of the most importantdocuments of the 21st century is theUnited Nations Millennium Declarationadopted by consensus by the UNMillennium Summit, in New York, on 8September 2000. The Declarationcontains a set of fundamental valueswhich are considered to be essential tointernational relations in the currentcentury. These include: freedom,equality, solidarity, tolerance, respectfor nature and shared responsibility. Inorder to translate these values intoaction, the UN Summit has identified anumber of key objectives to whichspecial significance is assigned. Thekey objectives belong to topical fields,such as peace, security, disarmement,development, poverty eradication,protecting common environment,human rights, democracy and goodgovernance.

The largest diplomatic gathering inhuman history, the UN Summit came tothe conclusion that success in meetingthe objectives in the field ofdevelopment and poverty eradicationdepended, inter alia, on goodgovernance within each country and atthe international level.(1)

How can multilateral diplomacy

contribute to the universal recognitionof the fact that good governancegrounded in democracy, the rule of lawand respect for human rights is thebest foundation for sustainabledevelopment? The reflections submittedin this essay as an answer are focusedon the present challenges for the futureof good governance in the era ofglobalization during which themanagement of complexity is afundamental prerequisite for thesurvival and evolution of an authenticdiplomacy, truly instrumental in theservice of the universal values ofhumanity.

1. An Attribute of Democracy

In the absence of a normativedefinition, we may accept pragmaticallythat in broad terms governance isthe exercise of political, economicand administrative authority to managea nation’s affairs. Governanceencompasses a whole range of complexmechanisms, processes, relationshipsand institutions through which citizensand groups articulate their interests,exercise their rights and obligations andmediate differences.

For working purposes we can alsospecify some of the main elements ofgood governance which entered intothe generally accepted internationalvocabulary as a result of successfulefforts undertaken on its substantiveaspects at various levels of multilateral

diplomacy. The enumeration of thoseelements, as suggested by the UnitedNations after intensive diplomaticnegotiations, includes: participation,rule of law, transparency,responsiveness, consensus orientation,equity, effectiveness and efficiency,accountability and strategic vision. (2)It is understood that these elements andthe characteristics attached to them aremutually reinforcing, are interrelatedand cannot stand alone. Long anddetailed negotiations are needed tocome to consensus definitions of allthese notions, taking into account thedifferent cultural contexts in which theyare used.

The rounds of negotiations duringwhich good governance isprofessionally invoked and consideredby diplomats in view of its inclusion invarious resolutions are an integral partof a continuous process. Indeed, everyday states conduct thousands ofnegotiations over thousand of issues ina bilateral context and in multilateralforums. Good governance is andremains a significant issue on thediplomatic agenda of both bilateral andmultilateral negotiations.

It has been emphasized both inthe specialized literature and indifferent stages of debates andnegotiations that good governance wasby its essence an attribute ofdemocracy. In the era of globalizationand competition, good governance isexpected to combine in a rational,predictable manner economic reforms

and social responsibility with the aim ofpromoting institutional reforms, socialstability and justice.(3)

Good governance is frequentlypraised by national delegations ininternational organizations, beingrecognized that it is an essentialbuilding block for meeting theobjectives of sustainable development,prosperity and peace.(4) Lack of goodgovernance has a negative influence onbusiness development and economicgrowth. Poor governance poses seriousthreats to security and stability atnational level and can generate “hotspots” among states.(5) Dysfunctional,unresponsive and non-transparentinstitutions generate incoherent andinefficient governmental policies, andopen the way for corruption and abuses,underdevelopment, economic and socialpolarization.(6)

Under such circumstances it isobvious that bad governance in adeveloping country may affect itsefforts aiming at progress andprosperity and has a general negativeimpact on the future of that country, inparticular if it is ill-prepared forglobalization. Events demonstrate yearby year that some developing countriesare frequently hostages of the foreignfunds, having little control over capitalflows. In such situations the need forgood governance is vital andfundamental as it is also the constantrequirement for a realistic vision andcapacity to learn to live in the era ofglobalization. Multilateral diplomacy

cannot remain passive when confrontedwith this unavoidable requirement.

As the primary instrument ofinternational communication andnegotiation, diplomacy is permanentlycalled upon to contribute tochannelling global changes in anevolutionary, peaceful, democratic andrule-based manner. Its objectivesinclude identification of commoninterests and agreement on collective orparallel action in their pursuit as well asthe recognition of conflicting interestsand possible agreement on compromisesolutions.

Diplomacy contributes in a specificway to an orderly system ofinternational relations and is the mostcommon political technique for thepeaceful settlement of disputes. It ispermanently involved in conveying andclarifying of messages betweengovernments, in the gathering ofinformation and the cultivation offriendly relations. One of its priorities,as the main vehicle of foreign policy, isto facilitate the promotion of goodgovernance both at domestic andinternational levels.

Multilateral/conference diplomacystrongly emphasizes the search forconsensus while dealing with globalissues as well as in its efforts to identifygenerally acceptable solutions oncontroversial issues. A genuinediplomacy involved in negotiations onglobal issues and serving adequatelynational interests may gradually lead to

the definition of a foreign policyconsonant with the imperatives of goodgovernance. International efforts todevelop good governance at planetarylevel recommend themselves as anintegral part of contemporarymultilateral diplomacy.

One of the first stimuli to initiate avigorous diplomatic action in favour ofgood governance came from theSummits of the Group of 7 (now eight)which announced that the heads of stateand government of the participatingcountries would focus their efforts onpromoting good governance and therule of law, strenghtening civil society,expanding women’s politicalparticipation, and boosting business andlabor support for democracy,particularly in young democracies andsocieties in conflict.

The substantive relevance of theposition expressed by the Group of 7could not pass unobserved in theUnited Nations, the most representativeforum for multilateral diplomacy.Chronologically speaking, the UNDP-sponsored International Conference onGovernance for Sustainable Growth andEquity (New York, 28-30 July 1997),attended by over 1000 participants,offered the first major occasion to givea new impetus to the very powerfulworldwide movement for a stronger,more effective, more accountable andmore transparent governance.

During the Conference it waspointed out that good governance

involved democratization, freeelections, an accountable assembly, therule of law backed by a strongjudiciary, a free press, a civil societythat had access to decision-makers, anda vibrant private sector. Other topicalissues included : accountability in thepublic sector; effective strategies to dealwith corruption;promotion of dialoguebetween governments and civilsociety;asistance to countries in crisis.It was also emphasized that all Statesshould take all possible measures tofurther the implementation of theUnited Nations Declaration againstCorruption and Bribery in InternationalCommercial Transactions and of theInternational Code of Conduct forPublic Officials, both adopted in 1996by the UN General Assembly afterextensive diplomatic negotiations.

In 1997, the UN GeneralAssembly urged Member States tocriminalize, in an effective andcoordinated manner, the bribery ofpublic office holders of other States ininternational commercial transactions,and encouraged them to engage, asappropriate, in programmatic activitiesto deter, prevent and combat briberyand corruption. States were urged todiminish institutional barriers throughthe development of integratedmanagement systems and the promotionof legal reforms, in accordance withtheir fundamental legal principles inboth the public and private sectors.Moreover, the General Assembly alsourged Member States to encourage agreater role for citizens in the

development of transparent andaccountable government, by supportingthe active participation of non-governmental organizations in theidentification, planning andimplementation of initiatives that raiseethical standards and practices in bothgovernment and business transactionsand by providing training and technicalassistance to other States, asappropriate, and to develop andimplement standards of goodgovernance, in particular, accountabilityand transparency, legitimatecommercial and financial conduct andother anti-corruption measures.

All these issues have attracted aworld-wide attention and havecontinued to be on the agendas of allmajor international meetings over theperiod 1997-2001. A few examples willillustrate this dynamic reality. TheThird International Conference of Newor Restored Democracies onDemocracy and Development(Bucharest, 2-4 September 1997)recalled that universal aspirations fordevelopment could not occur andmaterialize in a political vacuum. Anadequate environment must be createdin which government policies, as wellas market forces, civil actions andcommunity activity may contribute tothe fullest possible extent to theeradication of poverty to which morethan a billion of human beings arecurrently subjected.

There is no doubt that developmentdepends on the direct and active

participation of communities indecision making process in whichpeople should have the right toarticulate their demands. Individualsshould be permanently visible on thepolitical map in order to ensurecredibility to decisions that affect theirlives. Achieving sustainabledevelopment is possible only throughstrong, effective, participatory andcapable governance.

2. A Global Concept

The complexity of this conceptmakes very valuable the practicalcontribution of diplomacy to theeventual unanimous recognition of theuniversality of the fundamentalprinciples of good governance. Thetasks of diplomacy in this field aredelicate. The reasons are well known.The programmes for promoting goodgovernance should not have as a targetthe homogenization of developingcountries. It is the right and duty ofevery country to find its own path togood governance and democratization.Countries should not be bound by aready-made model. Good governancecan suceed only if it is in harmony withnational culture and history. It cannotbe imposed by force. While goodgovernance may share common featureson different continents, there is no oneuniversal model of good governance.That does not exclude the possibility ofhaving a body of principles recognizeduniversally as guidelines for

programmes of good governanceadapted to national specificities.

Efforts to promote goodgovernance should not be interpretedas attempts made by powerful nationsto impose their hegemony and valueson nations who are less powerful.Globalization with a human facerequires good governance but it shouldnot lead to homogenization. Clearly,history, culture, traditions andindividual characteristics acrossnational borders have an undeniableimportance and will continue to be agreat source of differences andvariability across national borders andwithin particular countries or groups ofcountries.

It is the role of diplomacy toexplain and ultimately to convincewithin a broad process of negotiationsthat if there is a clear and non-controversial mandate of the UN topromote good governance, it can beachieved by encouraging inclusion,accomodation and tolerance whichbelong in fact to the basic principles ofdemocracy. With such anunderstanding, democracy can beconsidered as one of the main pillars ofgood governance and of sustainablehuman development. Even if acomprehensive generally acceptabledefinition of good governance is still onthe wanted list, any definition of itshould necessarily encompass theproper functioning of the basicinstitutions of democracy, includingthose related to international relations.

In the diplomatic field it isimportant to have a well establishedprofessional civil service that is capableto absorb intelligently and to implementeffectively the signals coming frompolitical decision makers. Internationalnegotiation is both an art and a skillin which representatives of manycountries meet to identify or createareas of agreement among differentpositions. We live in an era inwhich international negotiations arethe predominant mode of relationsbetween States and there are soundreasons to believe that this mode willcontinue to function for anundetermined period of time. Therefore,for practical purposes the adequatemechanisms of negotiation and ofpeaceful accomodation should be addedto the relevant elements of goodgovernance enumerated above.(7)

That brings again into the picturethe current and future role of diplomacyin the international recognition of thecrucial importance of good governancein the solution of complex problems inthe era of globalization. We willremind just some of them. It is moreand more obvious that globalizationrequires the establishment of a new,world-encompassing culture ofcooperation. National interests cannotbe sacrificed, but they have to beharmonized with humankind’s globalinterests and values. The globalgovernance concept is just at itsbeginnings. The creation of newinstitutions and the reform/adaptation ofthe existing ones to manage the

irreversible process of globalization isone of the major challenges in the 21stcentury.(8)

In the present internationalenvironment it may be necessary toadopt new accords of globalgovernability, that implies in itself anew moral contract. Global governanceis far from being a global governmentconcept. According to the Commissionon Global Governance initiated in 1989which produced its full report in 1995,solutions to contemporary globalproblems can be effective only if theyare based on pre-defined anduniversally accepted values andprinciples. The process of definitionand acceptance of these principles andvalues is still far from its finalization.There is a continued need to strengthenconstructive dialogue and genuinepartnership in order to promote thoseprinciples and values.

Diplomacy has contributed to thegradual definition of such principlesand values as reflected in the UNMillennium Declaration of 8 September2000. In the light and on the basis ofthat Declaration, globalization issubjected to regulation in some basicspheres, such as world commerce,international competition, world financeand currency exchange, social relationsand environment. It should be notedthat diplomacy will be confronted witha lot of difficulties in this respect, asthe codification and progressivedevelopment of international law inthose spheres do not enjoy sufficient

support from the most influentialmembers of the world community ofnations.

There is a clear-cut awarenessabout these difficulties on thediplomatic front. As stated at the 1997Bucharest Conference “Managingglobalization requires capable leaders,political will and ethical determinationto assume the risk and the moralresponsibility of change. To consolidatePeace, Democracy and Development,taking into account the current dangerof emerging economic models that lackjustice, equity and solidarity, willrequire the implementation of at leasteight principles. These imperatives arethe following : to abolish corruptionfrom politics; to solve conflicts ofinterest within the countries, in ademocratic spirit; to stop the weaponsrace and to discourage waging war as away of solving disputes;to promotepeace and security for all; to givepriority to children and the young in thesolution of social problems; to promotequality of education for all and topreserve the environment and bio-diversity.”(9)

The above list of imperatives isnot complete and may be eclectic inmany regards, but there is no doubt thata whole programme of diplomaticactivities can be conceived andconstructed on that basis in order tofind adequate solutions to complexproblems emerging dramatically in theera of globalization. The essentialelement in that programme, so closely

linked to the concept of goodgovernance, should be the promotion ofrespect for human rights andfundamental freedoms.

It has been a positive achievementof multilateral diplomacy to make asolid linkage between human rights andgood governance. On 26 April 2000,the Commission on Human Rightsadopted resolution 2000/64 entitled“The role of good governance in thepromotion of human rights”. Thedocument emphasizes that thestrenghtening of good governance atnational level, including through thebuilding of effective and accountableinstitutions for promoting growth andsustainable human development, is acontinuous process for all governments,regardless of the level of developmentof countries concerned. In the samecontext it is noted that good governancepractices necessarily vary according tothe particular circumstances and needsof different societies.

The most remarkable element ofthe resolution is the express recognitionin its first operative paragraph “thattransparent, responsible, accountableand participatory government,responsive to the needs and aspirationsof the people, is the foundation onwhich good governance rests, and thatsuch a foundation is a sine qua non forpromotion of human rights.” Thesecond paragraph of the operative partemphasizes “the need to promotepartnership approaches to internationaldevelopment cooperation and to ensure

that prescriptive approaches to goodgovernance do not impede suchcooperation.”(10)

This is a direct appeal to diplomacyin order to infuse substance andconsistency to the promotion of goodgovernance aiming at the protection ofhuman rights and fundamentalfreedoms. The same appeal wasrepeated by resolution 2001/74 adoptedby consensus by the Commission onHuman Rights on 25 April 2001.

3. A Catalyst

The diplomatic dialogue provesevery day that good governance isespecially needed internationally ineconomic relations between nations.The developing countries insist that themost important decisions on economicpolicies should be made in universalforums. There is a large debate in theUnited Nations about how internationaldecision-making process can be mademore broadly participatory and how tonarrow the gap between politicalrhetoric and actual performance whiledealing with issues which are vital forthe sustainable development of allcountries.

At the national level, goodgovernance can be critically assessedby seeing how successful a particularcountry has been in creating the abilityto achieve a democratic consensus onthe basic political, economic, social and

cultural objectives, to develop astrategic capacity for progress and tolead to the modernization of the wholesociety. At the international level, anopen, stable and prospering worldeconomy is inseparable from adequatesystems of governance that arerespected and respect-worthy. Suchsystems are expected to function on thebasis of international law which by itsuniversality offers significant legalguarantees that all states are directparticipants in the management ofglobalization.

It is acknowledged that thegreatest chance of safety and survivalfor small states lies in law, ininstitutions and especially indiplomacy, all of them being under theimpact of good governance. Withoutgood governance diplomacy cannot besuccessful in the performance of itsspecific tasks. It should be admittedthat “diplomacy is the highest and truestexpression of the state, and of a nationas a community in a world of nationalcommunities. Particularly for smallstates, effective engagement in theinternational diplomatic system issimply crucial.” (11)

The United Nations systemillustrates that elementary truth bybeing first and foremost an institutionalframework for modern diplomacy andcollective decision-making of theinternational community. The UnitedNations legitimizes diplomacy andprovides a convenient forum for generaldiplomatic activity. It is estimated that

more than 90% of multilateraldiplomacy takes place withininternational organizations. In thisrespect the UN system acts as afacilitator and a catalyst. If by catalystwe understand, inter alia, “a personwhose talk,enthusiasm, or energycauses others to be more friendly,enthusiastic, or energetic”(12), there arereasons to accept the expression“catalytic diplomacy” in which newkinds of actors deal with new kinds ofissues, in new ways.(13)

Catalytic diplomacy finds the bestplace of manifestation in the UnitedNations, which is, indeed, a nobleexperiment in human cooperation. It isobvious for any attentive observer thatthe world remains divided by many anddiverse interests and attributes whichcannot be ignored in any responsibleevaluation of international realities.Yet, the United Nations throughmultilateral diplomacy tries to articulatean inclusive vision about the presentand future priorities facing humankind.In this regard diplomacy practicedunder the auspices of the UnitedNations has a historic mission as it actsnot only on current objectives ofhumankind, but aims at strengtheningthe existing elements of commonground and interests among nations inorder to build up a universal consensuson global issues.

As a truly universal institution, theUnited Nations is the only worldorganization capable of forging a globalpartnership among all nations,

irrespective of the differences in theireconomic, military and demographicpotential. Such a global partnership ishigly necessary during the era ofglobalization whose functionalinterpretation is not identical forvarious groups of countries. To manyproponents globalization holds out thepromise of an unprecedented age ofprogress and prosperity, of creativityand productivity. It has been saluted asa herald of democratic ideas and values.

On the other hand, there are strongopinions according to whichglobalization has become an all -embracing pretext for the imposition ofcertain sets of ideas and values, as aprocess leading to a monopoly ofeconomic power in the hands of aminority whose sole allegiance is to theworking of market forces, while themajority of humankind is increasinglymarginalized. This is a fact whichcannot be underestimated bymultilateral diplomacy which is calledupon to assist all countries to developthe capacity to cope successfully withthe effects of globalization, bothpositive and negative.(14)

It is cogent to note that thedevelopment of such a capacity requiresgood governance at the national leveland genuine diplomatic efforts atinternational level. A recent exampleis the resolution 2001/32 entitled“Globalization and its impact on the fullenjoyment of all human rights” adoptedby the Commission on Human Rightson 20 April 2001. According to this

document, globalization is not merelyan economic process, but also hassocial, political, environmental, culturaland legal dimensions which have animpact on the full enjoyment of allhuman rights. Multilateral mechanismshave a unique role to play in meetingthe challenges and opportunitiespresented by globalization and theprocess of globalization must not beused to weaken or reinterpret theprinciples enshrined in the Charter ofthe United Nations. The resolutionstresses that globalization has to bemonitored and managed with a view toenhancing its positive impact andalleviating its negative consequences onthe enjoyment of all human rights, bothat the national and international levels.The Commission on Human Rightsformulated in this respect a challengingtask for multilateral diplomacy.

That task is being translated intopractice by various initiatives, includingthose dedicated at the United Nationsand in other forums to promoting andconsolidating democracy. Both theCommission on Human Rights and theUN General Asembly adopted relevantresolutions on this issue. In resolution2000/47 of 25 April 2000 theCommission on Human Rightsreaffirmed that good governance,including through transparency andaccountability, is indispensable forbuilding peaceful, prosperous anddemocratic societies. It called uponstates, inter alia, to enhance socialcohesion and solidarity by developingand strengthening institutional and

educational capabilities, at local andnational levels, to mediate conflicts, toresolve disputes peacefully, and toprevent and eliminate the use ofviolence in addressing societal tensionsand disagreements.

Resolution A/RES/ 55/96 adoptedby the General Assembly on 4December 2000 contains appeals toimproving the transparency of publicinstitutions and policy-makingprocedures and enhancing theaccountability of public officials. Itcalls for fostering high levels ofcompetence, ethics and professionalismwithin the civil service and itscooperation with the public, inter alia,by providing appropriate training formembers of the civil service.Multilateral diplomacy will continue tohave an important role to play in theprocess of consensus–building onvarious practical objectives emergingfrom the relevant resolutions and otherinternational instruments dealing withgood governance.

4. The Hour of Global Solidarity Is there any meaningful

relationship between good governance,solidarity and multilateral diplomacy?In the light of the MilleniumDeclaration such a relationship existsand it is the task of multilateraldiplomacy to further develop theoperational nature of that correlationand express it in terms of action. The

prerequisites are favourable andstimulating. Recent developmentsprove that the direction is clearlydefined and there are significant factsillustrating the truth that goodgovernance is capable to have a positiveimpact on the consolidation ofsolidarity at the national level and tolead to the gradual creation of a cultureof global solidarity. The irreversibleprocess of globalization will have ahuman face if the universal value ofsolidarity becomes a tangible reality.In this respect, it should be recognizedthat the most inspiring stimuli camefrom the Holy See who has the beststructured conception about solidarityas a universal value.

On 10 January 2000 the HolyFather, Pope John Paul II stated, interalia, that “the century now beginningought to be the century of solidarity”(15). The same idea has been developedby the Holy Father in his New Year ‘smessage for 2001. He said: “All shouldtry to promote a culture of realsolidarity and of justice that isintricately linked to the value of peace,which is the primary objective for everysociety and necessary for national andinternational coexistence.”(16).

This pronouncement is inharmony with the requirements of goodgovernance at all levels. We find inthese words a further reflection andelaboration of the basic truth expressedin Latin in the admirable formula opussolidaritatis pax (peace is the fruit ofsolidarity), which has good chances to

follow the future of another Latinmaxim, pacta sunt servanda, which is afundamental principle/norm in publicinternational law and in particular in thecontemporary law of treaties, ascodified under the auspices of theUnited Nations. Indeed, the essence ofthis principle is that every treaty inforce is binding upon the parties to itand must be performed by them in goodfaith. Diplomacy is called upon todefend the sanctity of treaties inaccordance with the principle pactasunt servanda.

In the 21st century diplomacyshould defend the universal valuesproclaimed by the United Nations,including solidarity, with the convictionopus solidaritatis pax. In an articleaptly entitled “Common values for acommon era” available on the Internetthe United Nations Secretary-General,Kofi Annan, asserted that commonvalues “provide a shared yardstick forthe civilization of which we are all part.They form the essential framework ofour peaceful dialogue and interactionwith one another.” The world of valuesis immensely intricate and complicated,but through dialogue a consensus isemerging that they include the idealsand institutions towards which peopleshave an affective regard.

Common values should be furtherdefined through negotiations in order toenrich their content, to enlarge theirarea of applicability, to make themmore functional, while avoiding the riskof keeping them at a high level of

generality. Indeed, commonality ofvalues should not be used to narrowcultural principles which givespecificity to universal values. What iscommon to all nations should beinterpreted as a source of strength ofcentral importance for globalcooperation.

A broad dialogue on commonvalues becomes more and more topicalin the process of promoting globalsolidarity. In the conception of the HolySee as reaffirmed in January 2001 “theprime value which must be ever widelyinculcated is certainly that ofsolidarity”. At the same time it wasemphasized that “The present reality ofglobal interdependence makes it easierto appreciate the common destiny of theentire human family, and makes allthoughtful people increasinglyappreciate the virtue of solidarity”.(17)

The concept of human familyshould in fact be accepted by all thosewho believe in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights of 10December 1948 which in its very firstpreambular lines states that therecognition of the inherent dignity andof the equal and inalienable rights of allmembers of the human family is thefoundation of freedom, justice andpeace in the world.

The Holy Father has managed totreat the destiny of human family in thecontext of the irreversible process ofglobalization and came to theconclusion that “A deep knowledge of

the unity of the entire human familyand of the radical interdependence of allpeoples should gradually foster agreater conviction that it is only truesolidarity, understood as a moral qualitythat determines human relations, whichcan effectively safeguard the dignityand rights of individuals and,consequently, build peace withinsocieties and among nations.”(18).The relevance of this pronouncementfor the promotion of good governanceat the national and global levels on thebasis of the universal value of solidarityhas been further demonstrated by newdevelopments on the internationalarena.

The most important event in thefield of multilateral economicdiplomacy in 2000, the UNCTAD X,adopted on 19 February 2000 byconsensus “The Bangkok Declaration:Global Dialogue and DynamicEngagement” by which 190 countriesacknowledged that “Solidarity and astrong sense of responsibility must bethe guiding light of national andinternational policy. They are not onlyethical imperatives, but alsoprerequisites for a prosperous, peacefuland secure world based on truepartnership.”(19) These importantideas have fertilized the debates oneconomic and social issues as well ason human rights in the competentbodies of the United Nations. Thatillustrates the capacity of diplomacy toconvey topical messages to appropriatedestinations.

The presence of words imperativeand prerequisites in the text just quotedis not the result of an abstract linguisticexercise, but it reveals the existence ofa substantive consensus on the value ofsolidarity which does not belong anymore only to the remote terminology ofhumanitarian assistance.

That fact was demonstrated in amost convincing way by the consensusembodied in the United NationsMillennium Declaration adopted on 8September 2000 by the largestgathering of heads of state andgovernment during the whole history ofdiplomacy. Solidarity was elevated atthe level of a fundamental valueessential to international relations in the21st century. The UN MillenniumSummit found that in keeping withsolidarity “Global challenges must bemanaged in a way that distributes thecosts and burdens fairly in accordancewith the basic principles of equity andsocial justice. Those who suffer, orbenefit least, deserve help from thosewho benefit most”.(20) If goodgovernance is to be promoted at globallevel, can we ignore this requirementwhich has a dramatic resonance?

The contribution of the MillenniumSummit to the proclamation ofsolidarity as a universal value is anextraordinary event in the evolution ofthis concept, but it should be admittedthat we are still at a great distance froma practical globalization of solidarity.Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations,

explained cogently that “Undoubtedly,differences of approach remain,particularly between industrialized anddeveloping countries. The former putgreater emphasis on human rights, therule of law and good governance at thenational level, while the latter look forstronger evidence of solidarity and amore equitable distribution of powerand wealth between nations”.(21)

In our submission, there should beno antagonism between the two trends,but complementarity. Dr. SurinPitsuwan, the former Minister ofForeign Affairs of Thailand, stated in aspirit and vision of mutualunderstanding between the two trendsthat “We should look to the start of themillennium as a new chapter towardsforging greater unity and solidaritybetween the developed and thedeveloping countries, between the weekand the strong, between governmentsand civil society, in order to fulfill ourhopes and aspirations for achievinggreater developement and sharedprosperity for all.” (22)

A similar idea was expressed byLouise Frechette, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, atStockholm. With reference to the UNMillennium Declaration she said:“Since the Declaration was adoptedunanimously, the leaders of theindustrialized world have associatedthemselves with that call. We mustassume, therefore, that they intend torespond to it. After all, not only dothey have a human obligation to show

solidarity with the developingcountries, it is also in their interest tohelp those countries become fullpartners in the new global economy.”(23) Indeed, the emphasis on goodgovernance should not be selective andshould not neglect the obvious fact thatthe aspiration towards good governancecannot be separated from the body ofuniversal values proclaimed by theUnited Nations which represents themost authoritative set of guidelines fordiplomatic action during the presentcentury. In that context it is appropriateto recall some recent encouragingdevelopments.

During the special session of theUnited Nations General Assembly onHIV/AIDS (25-27 June 2001), whichadopted by consensus the Declarationof Commitment, John B. Richardson,head of delegation of the EuropeanCommission, stated that “Globalsociety is calling on the internationalcommunity to recognize the magnitudeof the problem and lend its support incombating it. This is the hour of globalsolidarity. The West must increase itsefforts to help more nations and peoplesto break the vicious cycle of disease andpoverty”.

That call was in harmony withmany similar opinions expressed duringthe special session, according to whichthe basic prerequisite for efficientprevention of HIV/AIDS is solidaritywith those affected, as a humanitarianimperative. Kofi Annan, the Secretary–General of the United Nations,

summarized in the best way the spirit ofthe special session dedicated toHIV/AIDS, by saying: “Never since thenightmare began, has there been such amoment of common purpose. Neverhave we felt such a need to combineleadership, partnership and solidarity.”If that combination would be alsoinspired and strengthened by anauthentic political will to use goodgovernance for the implementation ofthe Declaration of Commitment atnational, sub-regional, regional andworld levels, that would highlight thevalue of multilateral diplomacy as aneffective instrument in creating aholistic approach to address human,social, economic and cultural aspects ofthe HIV/AIDS problem, which has beendescribed as a silent global menacethreatening not only development andhuman security, but also internationalsecurity.

5. Towards Global Partnerships

All political leaders should begenuine partners in forging a newglobal economy and in protecting theuniversal values as defined by theUnited Nations. This requirement isvalid in all circumstances, including therecent events during which cogentquestions have been asked about thelegitimacy of the use of force. Byjoining a similar approach, we mayfollow Chantal de Jonge Oudraat inasserting that “leaders need to buildstrong international coalitions for

proposed coercive undertakings.Obtaining international support forthese interventions is a function of thethreat posed to regional andinternational security and human life.It also depends on national interests andleadership. The more countries see aninternal conflict as a threat to their ownsecurity and a threat to higher values,the easier it will be to construct acoalition to support internationalintervention. (...) The United Nationshas an important role to play in buildingand organizing international support forcoercive actions, and it can providelegitimacy to coercive actions.”(24) A“threat to higher values” may be adanger for good governance at alllevels.

These thoughts may be interpretedin the sense that giving materiality to aninstitutionalized solidarity, the UnitedNations may use its capacity to forgeinternational coalitions and to providelegitimacy to its actions subject toadequate and unambiguous approval bythe Security Council. It should beemphasized that in accordance withArticle 24 of the United NationsCharter 1. “In order to ensure promptand effective action by the UnitedNations, its Members confer on theSecurity Council primary responsibilityfor the maintenance of internationalpeace and security, and agree that incarrying out its duties under thisresponsibility the Security Council actson their behalf.” In a functionalinterpretation of this paragraph there isno difficulty in admitting that the

Security Council can create coalitionsbased on solidarity which willcontribute to the implementation ofduties of this main UN body in the fieldof the maintenance of internationalpeace and security. That solidaritywould be effective and action - orientedas the UN Charter disposes by Article25 that “The Members of the UnitedNations agree to accept and carry outthe decisions of the Security Council inaccordance with the present Charter.”The advance agreement for such anacceptance may be also considered asan interesting example of goodgovernance applied at institutionallevel.

It is not the purpose of these pagesto analyze how a coalition based onsolidarity and established by a decisionof the Security Council may put intoeffect its mandate in a specific context,but it should be reminded that inharmony with the most simpledefinition and pragmatic understandingof solidarity, at international level itmeans unity or communion of interestsand responsibilities among nations ormankind in general. Can solidarity beexpelled or marginalized in anorganization in which all its Membersare firmly determined to practicetolerance and live together in peacewith one another as good neighbors?May good neighborliness exist withoutsolidarity?

If the United Nations is the highestform of institutionalized solidarity, itshould be more visible in all its actions

and initiatives. Multilateral diplomacyshould be more in the picture withrealistic and well prepared initiatives.As pointed out by Dr. SupachaiPanitchpakdi, former Deputy PrimeMinister and Minister of Commerce ofThailand, global institutions should beurged “to go beyond their regularpractices with coherent actions for thegroup as a whole. It is cruciallychallenging for these institutions to gettogether and work more closely, sharingmore similar great ideas.”(25) In ananalogous spirit, Dr. Kim Hak-Su,Executive Secretary of ESCAP,asserted that “Since the effects ofchange brought about by developmentare multidimensional and requiremultidimensional responses, there is aneed for institutions that can initiate andcope with the multifaceted aspects ofchange; ESCAP, by virtue of its multi-disciplinary capability will continue todo so.”(26)

It should be recalled that the

Economic and Social Commission forAsia and the Pacific (ESCAP) is thelargest regional body of the wholeUnited Nations system, having 61Members and Associate Members andthe biggest demographic dimension.Its 57th session (Bangkok, 19-25 April2001) can be mentioned as a success byusing the resources of multilateraldiplomacy for the fruitful promotion ofits mandate, programmes and visionleading, inter alia, to the strenghteningof the negotiation position ofdeveloping countries. Practice atteststhe existence of a multitude of bilateral

and multilateral negotiations on a widerange of protocols and conventions,notably in the areas of trade andenvironment. In that respect, theExecutive Secretary cogently suggestedthat ESCAP could play an importantrole in providing meaningful training todeveloping countries in strengtheningtheir capacity to participate effectivelyin such negotiations.( 27) This is adirect contribution to the developmentof multilateral diplomacy throughappropriate training, having in mind therequirements of global governance,which, in the interpretation given by theUnited Nations, means the cooperativemanagement of global affairs.

At the European level, theimperative of solidarity in dealing withthe complex political, economic andsocial issues confronting the 55Members of theOrganization forSecurity and Cooperation in Europe(OSCE) was reaffirmed in the spirit ofthe Istanbul Charter for EuropeanSecurity adopted on the 19th ofNovember 1999. By virtue of thisdocument, the OSCE participatingStates are committed to build theirrelations in conformity with the conceptof common and comprehensivesecurity, guided by equal partnership,solidarity and transparency. In harmonywith that philosophy, Mircea Geoana,Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romaniaand Chairman-in-Ofice of OSCE, in hisaddress to the Heads of OSCE MissionsMeeting in Bucharest, stated on 22January 2001: “We all have a commonagenda: to make sure that the world is

safer, that new conflicts are prevented,that existing conflicts are contained andbrought to negotiated settlement.(...)Problems are different. The nature ofthe work is specific. The challengescannot be compared. Still, by sharingyour experience with one another, wewill all benefit from new ideas and arenewed sense of solidarity among us,conducive to success.”(28) Indeed, inmultilateral diplomacy success isunconceivable without a sense ofsolidarity permanently renewed, as thespecific circumstances may require invarious cases.

Solidarity cannot be limited to thepolitical field alone. As emphasized byKofi Annan, Secretary-General of theUnited Nations, in his address to heWorld Economic Forum in Davos,Switzerland, on 28 January 2001, intomorrow’s global society “marketsmust be open, but open markets must befully underpinned by shared values andglobal solidarity.”(29).

The Davos Forum and the WorldSocial Forum in Porto Alegre (January2001) have vividly re-demonstrated thetopicality of solidarity at the age ofglobal politics.

It is undeniable that global politicsrisks to become fractured between thoseincluded and those excluded from thefruits of globalization. It appearedthat a more pragmatic approach tothe vast problematic of solidarity wouldbe very useful and would help itseventual codification and progressive

development. Negotiating a culture ofglobal solidarity is an endeavour ofgreat significance for all States duringthe United Nations Year of Dialogueamong Civilizations (2001) and in thelight of several UN meetings, includingthe Brussels Conference on the leastdeveloped countries (May 2001).Taking the floor at the BrusselsConference, the representative ofthe Holy See, Apostolic Nuncio,Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, stated:“Our task is to make solidarity a reality.We must create a worldwide movementwhich understands solidarity as anatural duty of each person, eachcommunity and each nation. Solidaritymust be a natural and essential pillar ofevery political grouping, the privatepossession of neither right or left,neither North nor South, but an ethicalimperative of a humanity which seeksto reassert its vocation to be a humanfamily.”(30 )

It is rewarding to identify inparagraph 16 of the Programme ofAction adopted by consensus by theBrussels Conference on 20 May 2001the idea that “The development partnerswill assist in the implementation of theProgramme of Action through thecommitments undertaken herein in aspirit of genuine solidarity and sharedresponsibility.” It should be mentionedthat the Conference was organizedunder the common auspices of theUnited Nations and of the EuropeanUnion and was attended by 193governments and many non-governmental organizations, with a

total of over 6500 participants.

Many representatives at theBrussels Conference and at other recentinternational gatherings pointed out thatpermanent negotiations were necessaryin order to give more substance andvitality to universal values requested bythe emerging global order. Thedevastating earthquakes in severalcountries,other natural disasters, as wellas the reactions to such tragic events,including those from Europe and Asia,are pathetic reminders of the duty ofsolidarity as an imperative prerequisiteof globalization.

A head of Asian State said thatinternational solidarity has become animperative;in its absence we might notsurvive this millennium.(31) In Davos,Jean Francois Rischard, vice presidentfor Europe of the World Bank, assertedinter alia: “(...) the solidarity conceptthat is at the heart of European identityis precisely the concept that can inspirenew approaches in global problem-solving”. (32)

The United Nations may continueto bring an important contribution to thepromotion of solidarity as a universalvalue starting with the currentInternational Year of Dialogue amongCivilizations and in the context of itsfollow-up.(33) Resolution 55/23 of 13November 2000 emphasizes the needto acknowledge and respect the richnessof all civilizations, to seek commongrounds among and within civilizationsin order to address threats to global

peace and common challenges tohuman values and achievements,taking into consideration, inter alia,cooperation, partnership and inclusion.

The mentioning of partnership inthat context is significant by itself,as it reconfirms the positive trendencouraged by multilateral diplomacyof linking solidarity and partnership,as illustrated by the MillenniumDeclaration of 8 September 2000.The implementation of the MillenniumDeclaration is a challenging test formultilateral diplomacy. A lot ofimaginative initiatives will be needed.The point of departure could beresolution A/RES/55/162 of 14December 2000 which invites interalia the regional commissions, incooperation with regionalintergovernmental organizations andregional development banks, to reviewprogress made towards implementingthe Millennium Declaration.

In addition, resolutionA/RES/55/193 of 20 December 2000entitled “High level dialogue onstrengthening international economiccooperation for development throughpartnership” offers a new example ofthe functional linkage betweensolidarity and partnership, as definedthrough the channels of multilateraldiplomacy at the United Nations, in thespirit of the Millennium Declaration. Itreaffirms “the importance of continuingthe dialogue to be conducted inresponse to the imperative of solidarity,mutual interests and benefits, genuine

interdependence, shared responsibilityand partnership in promotinginternational economic cooperation fordevelopment.” It should be noted thatthis issue would continue to beconsidered in 2001 at the 56th session ofthe UN General Assembly. It remainsto be seen how multilateral diplomacywill manage to further consolidate thelinkage between good governance,solidarity and global partnership.

That is first of all a political task,but it requires also a legal approach.The relationship between power andjustice in international law cannot beignored while attempting to give globalsolidarity a juridical content andarticulate it with the requirements ofgood governance and globalpartnerships. The task is far frombeing easy. Yet, as cogently observedby M Sornarajah, professor at theFaculty of Law of the NationalUniversity of Singapore, “the attitudestaken by hegemonistic power are beingchallenged by the preference of theinternational community for theestablishment of a normative order.The vigour of the challenge willaccelerate as democratarian attitudes tolaw-making in the internationalcommunity become entrenched. Aspower is an ephemeral phenomenon, itis in the interest of any hegemonic stateto accept the fact that the existence of anormative order will work to itsadvantage too at some future time.”(34)It can be expected that a normativeorder will contribute also to thedevelopment of good governance with

positive effects on the future ofmultilateral diplomacy and its efforts innegotiating global solidarity andpartnerships.

One of the most burningexpectations is the universalization ofthe supremacy of international lawwhich is crucial for peaceful relationsand cooperation at all levels. The veryprocess of globalization requires anormative approach conducive to whatAdrian Nastase, professor at the Facultyof Law of Bucharest University, calls“a law of humanity”. It is assumed thathumanity encompasses and expressesnot only the community, the solidarityof peoples, the continuity of theiridentity and rivalries, but also a trans-temporal dimension covering past,present and future generations.(35)

Within the framework of anemerging “law of humanity” solidaritymay become a tangible reality of thetwenty-first century. It should bereminded that the greatest failures ofthe United Nations have not beencaused by the imperfections of itsCharter or by institutional difficulties ofa structural nature, but rather bycollective inability of its Member Statesto cement their solidarity and fullyassimilate in practice the noble valuesand ideals of the world organization.The future of the United Nations isgreatly dependent upon the genuinepolitical will of Member States to givemateriality to an authentic globalizationof their solidarity and to functionalformal and informal coalitions for

change transcending both geographicaland political boundaries. Goodgovernance may pave the way for aneffective implementation of thoseobjectives. (36)

If the United Nations is theindispensable common house of theentire human family, the unstintingsupport for its global objectivesand values should become a timelessand universal commitment. Goodgovernance, solidarity, multilateraldiplomacy can be treated with moderateoptimism at the United Nations. Thereis a broad consensus that goodgovernance can be sucessfullypromoted if the efforts undertakentowards its realization are part of acoherent, strategic vision.

A pedagogy of good governancemay facilitate to leaders and to variouspopulation groups in their task oflearning how to achieve a long-termperspective on good governance andhuman development in the era ofglobalization. Good governance willnot become a universal reality by itself.Multilateral diplomacy will still have toaccomplish a lot of difficult work usingthe art of persuasion. Governmentsthemselves should acknowledge thatchange and globalization are in arelation of synonymy. It makes thesituation more complex in a dramaticway. Errors will be made in variousassessments of possible solutions.Success will not be easy. But if successis the intersection between opportunityand preparedness, a broader dialogue on

the issue should be stimulated with theactive and energetic participation ofacademia.

In the numerous rounds ofnegotiations, the practitioners ofmultilateral diplomacy, while beingsensitive to all new developmentsshould assist in separating essentialelements from the accessory ones.If good governance is to be promotedto the largest possible extent, itsfoundations offered by universal valuesshould be permanently consolidated.Solidarity through its profound humansubstance has good chances to beconstantly cultivated both at thenational and global levels. Authenticdiplomacy will always be realisticenough to recognize that the technicaldetails of good governance cannot beconsidered and solved in an exhaustivemanner in the existing internationalinstitutions. Cultural and religiousdifferences can hardly be neglected inthis field. However, if genuinediplomacy is based on creativethinking, it will always do its best toarticulate and harmonize the specificrecommendations made during themultitude of negotiations on economic,political and social matters with therequirements deriving from universalvalues proclaimed by the UnitedNations among which solidarity has acentral place.

A moderate optimism should beretained in that respect. One of ourpresent challenges is the economy ofknowledge and information which is

capable to harness good governance. Itis acknowledged at the highest politicallevel that “with information technology,the concept of solidarity has been givena new thrust.”(37) This obviousdevelopment cannot pass unobservedby the practitioners of multilateraldiplomacy venturing into uncharteredwaters of globalization. Goodgovernance is expected to providediplomacy with the necessary politicalequipment for dealing in a responsibleway with the challenges ofglobalization, while solidarity must bethe guiding light and the imperativeprerequisite in the collective efforts tobuild up a prosperous, peaceful andsecure world.(38)

Multilateral diplomacy shoulddemonstrate its ability to persevere andsucceed in the search of consensualsolutions through negotiations that areconsonant with the fundamentalinterests and aspirations of all peoples.The United Nations with itsuniversality, legitimacy and welldefined mandates may perform a uniquerole in stimulating and reinvigoratingmultilateral diplomacy by its owncapacity to facilitate consensus-buildingon global issues.(39) It is a fact of lifethat the United Nations is contributingto forging global partnerships thatwould hardly have been conceivableeven a decade ago. One of the mostinteresting examples is the GlobalCompact by which private corporations

would commit themselves to observe,in their corporate field, good practices,as defined by international communityin the domains of human rights, labourand the environment. Diplomacy canhelp Member States to advanceprogressively towards globalpartnerships based on solidarity and gobeyond supportive sentiments, andcommit themselves firmly to specificactions meant to help them to meetsuccessfully the major challengesconfronting the internationalcommunity in the present century.

It will be the permanent andresponsible task of multilateraldiplomacy to give tangibility to aculture of global solidarity guided bygood governance and effectiveleadership, in a world in which forgingglobal partnerships for solving majorproblems should become a generallyaccepted practice. In that regard wemay join the prophetic words of theUnited Nations Secretary-General,according to whom “A global erarequires global engagement. Indeed, ina era of growing number of challengesfacing humanity, the collective interestis the national interest.” (40) Ifthat thought-provoking aspiration issuccessfully negotiated and endorsed inthe forums of multilateral diplomacy,all peoples would enhance their faith inthe United Nations and its Charter asindispensable foundations of a morepeaceful, prosperous and just world.

____

References:

1) The full text of the UNMillennium Declaration isavailable in ABAC Journal, Vol.20, No.2, May-August 2000,pp.40-48.

2) See, in particular, “GovernanceFor Sustainable HumanDevelopment”, A UNDP policydocument, UNDP, New York,January 1997, pp.2-5. For ageneral presentation of therelationship between goodgovernance and diplomacy, seeDr. Vladimir Petrovski, Director,European Office of The UnitedNations, Diplomacy as anInstrument of Good Governance(Conference available on theInternet; visited on 20 June 2001).

3) Mircea Geoana, Address at theNinth Meeting of the OSCEEconomic Forum 2001, Prague,15 May 2001. (Internet edition).That idea was further developedby the OSCE Chairman-in-Officeon 21 June 2001 in the Addressto OSCE Permanent Council. Itwas pointed out that “Theintroduction of good governanceand transparency, effectiveenforcement of anti-corruptionmeasures, the elimination ofbureaucratic red tape, reform of thepublic administration, will go along way towards creating the kind

of climate which is conducive toinvestment and economic growthand ultimately to a better life forour citizens.” (Internet edition.Visited on 29 June 2001).

4) Kofi A. Annan, Renewal andTransition, United Nations, NewYork, 1997, p.10.

5) Daniel Daianu, ConcludingRemarks at the OSCE EconomicForum 2001, Prague, 18 May2001. (Internet edition)

6) Mircea Geoana, Address quoted innote 3 above.

7) Mircea Malitza, “Democracy andInternational Organisations”,paper presented at the ThirdInternational Conference of Newor Restored Democracies onDemocracy and Development,Bucharest, 2-4 September 1997,pp.7-8.

8) Eugeniusz Kosmicki, ShapingGlobalization - A Challenge for21st Century Ethics and Politics,Dialogue and Universalism, No.3/2001, pp.39-53.

9) Third International Con-ference of the New or Restored Democracies, ProgressReview and Recommendations ,

Bucharest, 2-4 September 1997,p.109.

10) See Doc.E/2000/23, Part I of 18

July 2000, pp.372-373.

11) Alan K. Henrikson, Diplomacyand Small States in Today’sWorld. (Internet edition. Visitedon 3 June 2001)

12) Webster’s Encyclopedic Una-bridged Dictionary of theEnglish Language, New RevisedEdition, Gramercy Books, NewYork, 1994, p.231.

13) Paul Sharp, Who Needs Diplo-mats? The Problem ofDiplomatic Representation(Internet edition. Visited on 3June 2001)

14) Bangkok Post , September 30,1997, p.1.

15) The quotation is taken from theoriginal text circulated to theparticipants at the exchange ofgreetings of the Holy Father withthe Diplomatic Corps the 10thJanuary 2000. The most extensiveresearch about the doctrine of theHoly See on solidarity is: ErosMonti, Alle fonte dellasolidarieta. La nozione disolidarieta nella dottrina socialedella chiesa, Milano, 1999, 532 p.See also Jorge Omar Ireba,International Subjectivity and

the Holy See, Assumption PrintingPress, Bangkok, 2001, 102p.

16) Apud the Report of Rev. BrotherBancha Saenghiran presented atthe twenty-eighth CommencementExercises, Assumption University,27 January, 2001, p.10.

17) Quoted from the Internet edition,visited on 6 April 2001.

18) Internet edition, visited on 6 April2001.

19) Doc.TD/387 of 18 February 2000,par.9.

20) Doc.A/RES/55/2 of 8 September2000 entitled United NationsMillennium Declaration, par. 6.

21) Internet edition, visited on 6 April2001.

22) Quoted from the original text of theaddress pronounced on 13February 2000 and circulated byUNCTAD Secretariat the sameday.

23) Press Release DSG/SM/115 of 15November 2000, p.2.

24) Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, Inter-vention in Internal Conflicts:Legal and Political Conun-drums , Carnegie Endowment forInternational Peace, 2000,WorkingPaper No.15, p.1

25) Supachai Panitchpakdi, ShiftFocus from Domestic toDevelopment Issues, UNChronicle, No.3/2000, p. 56.

26) Kim Hak-Su, MultidimensionalChange and Regional Response,UN Chronicle, No.3/2000, p.23.

27) Doc.E/ESCAP/L.147 of 25 April2001, No.22, p.4.

28) Internet edition, visited on 15 May2001.

29) Internet edition, visited on 6 April2001. For a broader image aboutthe Secretary-General’s views onglobal values, see Kofi A. Annan,Global Values. The UnitedNations and the Rule of Law inthe 21st Century, Singapore,Institute of Southeast AsianStudies, 2000, 36 p.

30) Internet edition, visited on 15 May2001.

31) UN Chronicle, No.3/2000, p.34.

32 Internet edition, visited on 15 May2001.

33) For a cogent discussion about thisimportant event, see the synthesisabout a seminar organized in

Bucharest on 6-7 June 2000 inRomanian Journal of InternationalStudies, Volume VI, Number 3-4/2000, pp.275-303.

34) M Sornarajah, Power and Justicein International Law, SingaporeJournal of International andComparative Law, 1997, I, p.68.

35) Alexandru Bolintineanu, AdrianNastase, Bogdan Aurescu, Con-temporary International Law,Bucharest, All Beck, 2000, p.312.(in Romanian)

36) Ioan Voicu, Manage the Global-ization of Solidarity, UNChronicle, No.3/2000, p58.

37) Ricardo Lagos, Thabo Mbeki,Goran Persson, We Will HarnessInformation Technology for theHave Nots, International HeraldTribune, 13 July 2000, p.6.

38) Doc.TD/387 of 18 February 2000,par.9.

39) Kofi A. Annan, Common Destiny,New Resolve. Annual Report onthe Work of the Organization.2000, United Nations, New York,2000, pp.5-6.

40) Doc.A/55/ 985-S/2001/574 of 7June 2001, par.164.

_____