July 03, 2008
Sir good am. each members of the United Nations are compelled to contribute financially for its subsistence.
It is stated from the net that:
“ The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The regular two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are funded by assessments. The General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by their Gross National Income(GNI), with adjustments for external debt and low per capita income”
Major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2006[6]
Member Nation (the list is not complete)
Contribution (% of total UN budget)
United States
22.00%
Japan
16.624%
Germany
8.66%
United Kingdom
6.13%
France
6.03%
Italy
4.89%
Canada
2.81%
Spain
2.52%
China
2.667%
Mexico
1.88%
Australia
1.59%
Brazil
1.52%
My Question: With this unequal contribution from every states, would it not lead to:
Tendency for the highest contributors to demand more privilege and/or more control over major organs of the Organization?
Which would lead to negate the primary function of the Organization which is to: be based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members?
Just asking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
in my opinion sir ariel, ambot lang ug sakto ba ko... kay it depends upon the capacity to pay sa country murag sa taxation ba.. hehehe -gerard
Sovereign Equality in international law does not signify parity in physical power, political influence or economic status or prestige. Regardless of their contributions as in the case of influential and powerful states, their rights are not dependent upon their powers and contributions. The recognizable right of every state is its existence as a person in the international law. Realistically, it is imposible to have equal rights recognized among nation members, as their are some rights recognized in some states and there are others not. Thus, all nations have equal rights to enjoy their attributes as members of the family nations. Accordingly, all members of the United Nations have each one vote in the National Assembly, this is regardless if they are small, powerful, less influential or may not be able to contribute as big as other states. Moreover, the contributions in the UN are also based on equal proportion, those small states are not subjected to the same financial responsibilities as the affluent members. But, again this will not cause those small states to lose that one vote reserved for them in the General Assembly. True enough they are still entitled of that one vote in the spirit of equality.
MATISA CABILLO :)
Sovereign Equality in international law does not signify parity in physical power, political influence or economic status or prestige. Regardless of their contributions as in the case of influential and powerful states, their rights are not dependent upon their powers and contributions. The recognizable right of every state is its existence as a person in the international law. Realistically, it is imposible to have equal rights recognized among nation members, as their are some rights recognized in some states and there are others not. Thus, all nations have equal rights to enjoy their attributes as members of the family nations. Accordingly, all members of the United Nations have each one vote in the General Assembly, this is regardless if they are small, powerful, less influential or may not be able to contribute as big as other states. Moreover, the contributions in the UN are also based on equal proportion, those small states are not subjected to the same financial responsibilities as the affluent members. But, again this will not cause those small states to lose that one vote reserved for them in the General Assembly. True enough they are still entitled of that one vote in the spirit of equality.
MATISA CABILLO :)
Sir Ariel, Sir Gerard is right,the contributions depends on the state's capacity to pay (tingali... hehehe). but with respect to your 1st question, i would say that there could be a tendency... we just don't know when or how it will take place... but if they are going to make such demand,they will still take into consideration the merits and the impact that it will cause because somehow they need also to take into account what the "international opinion" might have... with respect to your 2nd question, if such demand is made and will be granted, it does not necessarily negate such principle because the basic rights of the other states within the organization will still remain... having "more control and privilege" are just opportunities. and such cannot be given to all its members. they are available to the deserving ones. this does not confirm a negation to the mentioned principle. hehehe... --> WARR
Hi!
Please allow me to share my ideas towards this matter. As what you have discussed that the assessment and the voluntary contributions of each country are based on its relative capacity to pay, as measured by their Gross National Margin with adjustment for external debt and low per capita income. So it would be unlikely for the principal organs of the United Nation to come up with this agreement without having to consider its possible effects of unfair disadvantage.
I concur with Mating that regardles of their big or small percentage of contributions their rights are not dependent with their powers. It is probably designed that they will have a different percentage of contributions but it is being equalized to the voting requirement in which they are only entitled for one vote.
Thank you Judge.. heheh aw Ariel diay..
Shelly Hiyas
I am grateful to those who post their idea with regard to my question.
Verily, I agree with the idea that:
“the contributions in the UN are also based on equal proportion, those small states are not subjected to the same financial responsibilities as the affluent members. But, again this will not cause those small states to lose that one vote reserved for them in the General Assembly. True enough they are still entitled of that one vote in the spirit of equality”(Matissa) and “the contributions depends on the state's capacity to pay”(Warr).
But still allow me to express my doubt.
Yes, it is stated in the principle of the United Nations that every member have Equal Sovereignty and it is shown in the voting process that every member big or small is entitled only to one vote.
Yet, I believe that the essence of equality among the members of the Organization does not depend on the uniformity of the count of its vote alone. This is just a superficial equality. There must be a substantial equality wherein every members share at least a comparable power with all other members of the Organization. I do not see this equality in the Organization, or maybe I still need volumes of books to read to grasp what equality they are talking about.
My doubt stems from the suspicion and distrust with the composition and power of the Security Council especially the permanent status and veto power of the Big Five. I see this status and power of the Big Five as inimical to the purpose of the said principle.
With the present set up of the Security Council, any member of the Big Five (the permanent members of the Council) can prevent the adoption of any (non-'procedural') draft resolution which they do not like (for whatever reasons). As a consequence, the power of veto often prevents the Council from acting to address pressing international issues, and affords the Big Five great influence within the United Nations institution as a whole.
I would be convinced of “Sovereign Equality” if the set up of the Organization would be:
NO NATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BIG FIVE.
EVERY MEMBER NATIONS SHOULD HAVE EQUAL PRIVILEGE FOR REPRESENTATION AND POWER IN EVERY SRUCTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION.
Thanks again.
I would say that in theory, the equity here is that every nation is made to contribute based on the resources it has and its capacity in exchange for equality in treatment, support and provision of services. However, one cannot deny the fact,that in reality, a nation with a bigger contribution may have greater influence as obviously the threat of withdrawing its membership and contribution may prove detrimental to the existence of the organization. The funds that it is able to provide does not only reflect a nation's economic wealth but also reflects its ability to provide other resources including intellectual prowess. Obviously the greater nations produce the scholars, the scientists, the great leaders and so on and so forth. To my mind, the United Nations will always provide for a certain degree of equality and really work towards the perception that this is so. However, the inequality will never go away. Probably the saying that "all men are created equal" is never totally true:-)
In my own opinion, there is no inequality among members caused by unequal contribution of financial contribution in UN. There is equality among equals. Those members which have the same "capacity to contribute a certain amount" shall contribute the same amount imposed to them. Rate of contribution is based on the capacity of each member to contribute which is clearly a fair system. Same class have the same rate of contribution thus there is equality among equals which justifies the different rate imposed on different classes of members, categorized by financial capacity of the members of the UN or financial status of each members. It will be unfair if there is a uniform amount of contribution imposed to all members because it will be more onerous on the part of the low class than those in the higher class.
Post a Comment