Resumed Fifty-fifth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

60^th Meeting (AM)

FIFTH COMMITTEE DISCUSSES MANAGEMENT ISSUES AT INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

As the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) took up the report of the Joint Inspection Unit on the administration of the Registry of the International Court of Justice, speakers addressed weaknesses in the management of the Court, its staff requirements and measures taken in implementation of the Inspectors’ recommendations.

Emphasizing the importance of the Court as the highest judicial body within the United Nations system, several speakers stressed the need to respond to its needs.  In view of the Court’s increased workload, they supported recommendations to provide the Judges with research assistants, increase staff resources for translation, and to appoint a senior administrative officer.

However, in introducing the Inspectors’ report, Inspector Faith Bouayad-Agha of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), said that there was a certain feeling of malaise throughout the Court, which adversely affected the functioning of the Registry.  In particular, recruitment and promotion practices lacked transparency and coherence, there were no standard hiring practices, and decisions were often tainted by favouritism.

The United States’ representative pointed out that management deficiencies highlighted in the report had persisted undetected for years, and asked what oversight mechanisms had been put in place.  Introduction of a personnel appraisal system would be critical to improving personnel management at the Court.  It would be helpful for the new Registrar to present a status report on the implementation of the Inspection Unit’s recommendations.

In view of the observed management deficiencies, the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania questioned the practice of making appointments for the Registry.  He said that while the independence of Judges was beyond doubt, the post of Registrar should be part and parcel of the international civil service, governed by relevant United Nations rules and regulations.  As was the case with the two International Tribunals, the Secretary-General, as chief administrative officer of the United Nations, should appoint the Registrar, instead of the Court making that decision.  The Court’s support staff should not be above the normal administrative structure of the Organization.

Responding to comments from the floor, the Court’s Registrar, Philipe Couvreur, said that the International Court of Justice was an autonomous body, unlike the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia which were subsidiary to the Security Council.  The number of staff of the Court was too small to benefit a personnel appraisal system, which might be counterproductive at the present time.

The Director of Programme Planning and Budget Division, Warren Sach, said the Statute of the International Court provided a very detailed procedure for appointment of the Registrar, stating that “the Court shall appoint its Registrar” and other posts, deemed necessary.  There were no provisions allowing the Secretary-General to name the Registrar.

Also speaking this morning were the representatives of Cuba, Guatemala, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), Australia, India and Japan.

Other reports before the Committee were introduced by the Director of Programme Planning and Budget Division, Warren Sach, and the Court’s Registrar.

The Committee will conclude its general discussion of the Board of Auditors’ reports at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Background

This morning at its resumed second session, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was scheduled to continue consideration of broad issues concerning the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations, and hear the introduction of one new item, on the registry of the International Court of Justice.

To facilitate its deliberations, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretary-General, transmitting the report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled “Review of management and administration in the Registry of the International Court of Justice” (document A/55/834).  The Inspectors point out that the Court’s workload has grown significantly in recent years as a result of the growing number of cases, as well as their increasingly voluminous nature.  At the same time, budgetary restrictions applied throughout the United Nations have had an unfavourable effect on the Court’s resources in human and financial terms.  Thus, after taking note of the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly when the budget for the 2000-2001 biennium was approved, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) recommends that the Court present increased budgetary requests for the period 2000-2003.

In its recommendations, the JIU deals, in particular, with assistance provided for judges, through appointing law clerks, increased staff resources for the Department of Linguistic Matters, and the appointment of an administrative/ personnel officer.  The Inspectors suggest that the Court should include resources in its budget for the period 2002-2003 for three junior-level law clerk or research assistant posts, to constitute within the Department of Legal Matters a pool of staff to carry out research at the request of individual judges.

With regard to the need for increased staff resources in the Department of Linguistic Matters, the JIU recommends that the Court propose at least four new translator posts be created, and stresses the need for the Head of the Department to have an administrative assistant.  Finally, the JIU recommends that the Court examine, as a matter of priority, the possibility of having within the Registry an official responsible for administrative and personnel matters to assist the Registrar and the judges.

At the time of the preparation of the report, the Inspectors also noted a feeling of malaise, perceptible within the Registry.  According to the Inspectors, the source of this malaise lay at least partially in interpersonal relations, while it apparently also had some institutional roots.  Other recommendations suggests the Court examine the desirability of amending its Rules to reduce the Registrar’s term of office from seven to three years, renewable.  In support of that suggestion, the report contends that it would make it possible to limit the damage that might result for the Court if the choice of incumbent proves unfortunate.

The Unit also suggests that the Court consider appointing its Deputy Registrar for a shorter period, after consultation with the Registrar.  It suggests the Court improve its personnel management practices and procedures by aligning them with those applicable in the United Nations Secretariat.  Among other recommendations is a suggestion that the Registrar meet more regularly with his/her counterparts in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to increase cooperation and coordination with those bodies.

An addendum to that report (document A/55/834/Add.1) contains comments received from the International Court of Justice on the recommendations.  The Court notes that the JIU covered certain points which appear to relate to the Court itself, rather than solely to the Registry -- to which the report was meant to be limited.  On the whole, the Court accepts the greater part of the Unit’s analysis concerning the increase in its workload and the inadequacy of the resources available to it.

According to the report, a request for an additional budget for 2000-2001 has been presented to the Assembly, limited to urgent requirements.  The General Assembly approved this budget by the terms of its resolution 55/238.  The Court is currently preparing its proposals for the 2002-2003 budget, which will necessarily be more extensive.  Regarding additional staff appointments, the Court agrees  that its members now need individual legal assistance and fully endorses the recommendation that provision for law clerk or research assistant posts, possibly at the P-2 level, should be included in the budget.  However, the Court is of   the opinion that three such assistants would be inadequate, and is considering proposing that provision be made in the next budget for 15 law clerks at the     P-2 level.

Regarding personal relations within the Registry, the Court states that at present there is effective cooperation between the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar, and relations are not difficult.  After close consideration of the JIU’s suggestions, the Court will not adopt the recommendations to shorten the terms of office of the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar.  The Court does agree with the Unit, however, that the Registrar should be consulted about the choice of Deputy Registrar.

Introduction of Reports and Statements

SORAYA ALVAREZ NUÑEZ (Cuba) said her country’s representative to the Fifth Committee, Eva Silot Brava, had requested a visa to participate in the current session, but had thus been unable to obtain one.  The host country, she continued, was imposing on nationals of certain countries discriminatory deadlines for visa applications.  In the case of Cuba, that deadline was 21 days, an onerous condition that often prevented Cuban delegates from participating in the work of the United Nations.  She hoped that this situation could be rectified as soon as possible.  With that in mind, she added that, regrettably, Cuba would not be in a position to adopt or participate in any of the Committee’s decisions at the end of the session.

The Committee Chairman, GERT ROSENTHAL (Guatemala), took note of Cuba’s statement and said he hoped that the situation could be rectified as soon as possible.

Inspector FAITH BOUAYAD AGHA, of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), introduced that body’s report on the review of management and administration of the Registry of the International Court of Justice (document A/55/834).  He said that, through wisdom and determination, the Court had solved its problems with management of the Registry.  Indeed, the weaknesses and failures that had been identified during the JIU review had been largely rectified, but he thought it would be helpful for the Committee to hear a brief overview of the situation at the Court’s Registry as it existed when the review began.  This was not for the purpose of condemning anyone, but rather to identify useful lessons for the future management of other international administrative sectors.

He said that last September, when the review began, the issue before it had been the unsatisfactory management of the Registry, a condition exacerbated by budgetary provisions which fell short of its growing workload.  During the course of the review, the Inspectors discovered a certain malaise throughout the Court, which had affected the functioning of Registry particularly adversely.  For example, he noted that recruitment and promotion practices lacked transparency and coherence, a situation aggravated by the absence of any standards for hiring practices, and decisions tainted by favouritism.  In addition, the Court had no system for evaluating staff and had never considered the question of appraising staff performance until the idea had been suggested by Inspectors.  He added that Inspectors had also noted with concern the inadequate state of the Court’s archiving facilities, as well as the Court’s apparent failure to update its general list of cases for years at a time.

He next gave a brief listing of some of the JIU’s recommendations on the management of the Registry.  Those included, among others, considering amending the Rules of the Court to reduce the term of office for the Registrar to three years, and inclusion in the Court’s budget for 2002-2003 three posts of junior-level law clerks or research assistants.  In order to address the general malaise identified by the inspectors, the JIU had further recommended that the Court may wish to consider establishing consistent, fair and transparent management of personnel, by implementing practices and procedures more in line with the rest of the United Nations system.  The Court was also recommended to consider, as a matter of urgency, the possibility of having a senior administrative/personnel officer to assist the Registrar in dealing with staff management issues.

Introducing the Secretary-General’s comments on the JIU report (document A/55/834/Add.1), the Director of Programme Planning and Budget Division, WARREN SACH, said that those comments were restricted to budgetary matters.  The Secretary-General’s remarks were made bearing in mind that some action had already been taken to address the financial situation of the Court.

On the recommendation concerning the establishment of additional junior-level law clerks position to assist the judges, he said that the Secretary-General was awaiting the Assembly’s guidance in that regard.  No provisions had been included in the proposed budget, pending the Assembly’s decision.  Prior to the issuance of the report, action had been taken to provide additional resources for the Court, and the Secretary-General had submitted revised estimates reflecting the unexpected increase in the Court’s workload.  Concerning staff resources for translation, the Secretary-General was proposing an increase in the number of translators, related administrative and secretarial support and temporary assistance for meetings.  The Secretary-General also noted that a post to assist the Registrar in personnel management had been included in the proposed programme budget for 2002-2003.

PHILIPE COUVREUR, Registrar of the International Court of Justice, said that the Court’s comments were contained in Annex one to the Inspection Unit report.  He had nothing to add to the report at this point and would be glad to answer questions.

ROBERTO LAVALLE-VALDES (Guatemala) said that the Statute of the Court charged its Registry with formal tasks.  The Court could not fulfil its mandate without the Registry’s help, and a wide range of skills and talents were required of its staff.  The Registrar and his colleagues must also possess considerable diplomatic skills.

The considerable increase in the Court’s workload had a serious impact on its work, he continued.  Negative comments contained in the report of the Joint Inspection Unit were a concern.  Such an assessment of the Registry was in contrast with the positive comments on the legal department of the Court.  Problems in the Registry’s work could not but affect the legal work of the Court.  However, the report referred to a period prior to 2000, before the current Registrar of the Court had taken office.  He trusted that it had been possible to resolve the problems indicated by the Inspectors.  He was pleased that, in his statement, Inspector Bouayad-Agha had suggested that problems had been resolved.  Judges should have assistance of additional law clerks, and he was pleased that some posts had been added to the next budget of the Court.

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) said his delegation was satisfied with the Inspection Unit report.  At the same time, it had been very disappointing to hear that the senior officials at the Court had not acted sooner to correct many of the staff-management problems highlighted in that report.  He said that consideration of establishing a personnel appraisal unit would be critical to improving personnel management at the Court.  He felt it would be helpful for the new Registrar to present a status report on the implementation of the Inspection Unit’s recommendations, particularly on the Court’s administrative functioning.  In light of the fact that management deficiencies had persisted undetected for years, he asked what, if any, oversight mechanisms had been in place at the Court.  The United States would take the Court’s progress in implementing the recommendations into consideration, when the budget for the Court was reviewed later this year.

FOUAD RAJEH (Saudi Arabia) said, while his delegation supported the JIU’s recommendations, he had noticed that its recommendation 4, on the appointment of a Deputy Registrar, did not mention a term of office.  He would like to know if the Deputy’s term was contingent on the term of the Registrar.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) said he recognized the importance of the Court as the highest judicial body within the United Nations system and, in that regard, he felt that the Committee must always respond to its needs.  Syria was particularly pleased with recommendations 1 (on research assistants), 5 (on increased staff resources for translation) and 7 (on appointment of a senior administrative officer).  He hoped that the Assembly would respond favourably to those recommendations.  He also wondered whether, in future reports that come before the Committee, the recommendations of the Unit could be highlighted in bold and immediately followed by the recommendations of the Sectary-General.

CARL MAGNUS NESSER (Sweden) said that the European Union, on behalf of which he was speaking, attached great importance to the work of the Court, and he intended to revert to the matter in informal consultations.

MOHAMMAD YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) said that the registrar of any court was a very important personality.  The International Tribunal for Rwanda had to fire two registrars because of deficiencies in the work of that court.  It was astonishing to note that so many deficiencies existed within the International Court of Justice.  He asked why the Registrar was not appointed by the Secretary-General.  He did not see why the Registrar should not be part and parcel of the international civil service, governed by relevant rules and regulations.  While supporting the recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit, he would like the Committee to look at the problem within the framework of the overall administrative structure of the Organization.  As was the case with the two International Tribunals, the Secretary-General, as chief administrative officer of the United Nations, should appoint the Registrar, instead of the Court making that decision.  That would help to dispel any deficiencies in the future. 

HENRY FOX (Australia) said that, like the representative of the United States, he was surprised by the comments on staff appraisal, and he would like to receive some clarification in that regard.  Staff appraisal was important, and such a mechanism should be in place.  Regarding the resources for law clerks, the Court was interested in 15 such posts, and it was considering proposing provisions for that number.  The JIU had recommended that three be provided.  The Secretary-General, on his part, drew the Assembly’s attention to that recommendation and was awaiting further guidance from the Assembly. Was a provision made in the programme budget for any law clerks?  Was action required during this session?  Also, he wanted to hear the opinion of the International Court's representative on the adequacy of such a provision.

RAMESH CHANDRA (India) expressed his delegation’s full support for the Court.  It was gratifying that the weaknesses identified by the Inspection Unit had been, to a large extent, rectified.  Agreeing with several recommendations of the Inspectors, he noted that recommendation 2 regarding the follow-up on rationalization decisions had been fully implemented.  Several recommendations should be dealt with in informal consultations.  Recommendation 5, regarding increased staff resources for translation, was now redundant.  As for recommendation 6, on personnel practices and procedures, the “malaise” within the Registry should be discussed in an objective manner.

He noted some lack of clarity in the Inspectors’ statement on the criteria for recruitment and promotion. The Inspectors’ recommendations included provisions regarding job descriptions, the need to introduce a performance appraisal system, and other personnel procedures.  In today’s statement, on the one hand, the Inspectors were satisfied that some of those items were fully implemented, yet,  on the other hand, they could not agree with the Court’s remarks regarding staff appraisal.  He said it was time to ask the question whether some of the malaise in the Registry was, in fact, related to budgetary constraints imposed on the Court.

Responding to questions, Inspector BOUAYAD-AGHA said the Court was, indeed, subject to external monitoring by the United Nations Board of Auditors and the Office of Internal Oversight Services.  He added that the JIU's review had been initiated following consultation with the Oversight Office.  Further, that Office would soon undertake its own review of the Court.  He went on to say that the Court enjoyed judicial autonomy, but, at the same time, was responsible to the decisions of the Assembly.  The Secretary-General, however, did not have the power to appoint a Registrar for the Court.

The Registrar of the Court, Mr. COUVREUR, then explained that the Court was an autonomous body, unlike the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia which were subsidiary bodies of the Security Council.  He said that the Court had considered its size was such that the introduction of a personnel appraisal system might be counterproductive at present.  The Court may take up the issue again, however, if its staff numbers were to increase.  As for the Court's requests for overtime compensation, he drew attention to the high volume of work, inadequate levels of staffing, and the lack of a shift system which often required staff members to work around the clock.  He said that it had also been difficult to monitor sick leave and vacation time for staff members, but the situation was being reviewed in order to bring those procedures in line with other United Nations courts.

He said that the Deputy Registrar and the Registrar were presently elected for a period of seven years.  That term was generally in line with the term of office for judges throughout the United Nations system.  The terms were independent, and the departure of one did not affect the completion of the other’s term.  In response to further questions, he said that the Court had clearly expressed its views on the specific reason it needed to increase the number of law clerks and legal assistants -- namely, to handle a workload that had nearly doubled over the last few years.

Responding to a question by the representative of Syria on the availability of resources to address specific Inspection Unit recommendations, the Director of the Budget Division, Mr. SACH, said recommendation 5 (increased resources for translation) had already been approved, and that recommendation 7 (appointment of a senior administrative officer) was in the 2003 budget.  Recommendation 1 (appointment of a pool of research assistants) was under consideration, pending the decision of the Committee.  Whether action on that recommendation was required by the end of the session would be up to the Committee.  At the same time, however, a decision would have to be reached before the conclusion of the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly.

Mr. YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) said that he was not satisfied with the responses from the Inspector and the Registrar, for if the Court was independent, then why was the Committee discussing it in the first place?  Indeed, the Judges were independent, and the Committee should not interfere with their decisions and responsibilities.  However, the administrative structure of the Court, which was there to allow the judges to fulfil their mission effectively, should be governed by the rules and procedures of the United Nations.  If the Statute allowed the Court to establish its own procedures, then there was something wrong with such a situation, and it should be seriously addressed.

The matter should be further discussed in informal consultations, he continued, for it was not enough to hide under the argument that the Court was independent -– that was well known.  However, the Committee was talking about the Registrar and other supporting staff of the Court.  Those people should not be above the normal administrative structures of the Organization.  If they could not be touched, then why was the Committee discussing the administration of the Court?

The Committee’s Chairman, Mr. ROSENTHAL (Guatemala), then informed the Committee that informal consultations on the matter would take place tomorrow morning, to take advantage of the presence of the Registrar and others involved in the discussion.

Mr. REPASCH (United States) expressed satisfaction that informal consultations would be held with the presence of the officials concerned.  On the performance appraisal system, the Inspection Unit report stated that the Court had 26 Professional and 32 General Service staff at the time of the inspection.  The authorized strength of the International Court of Justice was currently 76 staff members.  The Registrar had indicated that the number of staff was too small to hold performance appraisals, and he wanted to know how large the number of staff should be for that to be useful.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that he needed further clarification regarding the 16 proposed posts for the Court, and asked when they would be approved by the Assembly.  On recommendation 7 of the initial proposals, he also noted that an administrative post had been established.  Continuing, he inquired about recommendation 5, which was asking for an increase in resources for translators. If the Assembly adopted recommendation 1, would the Secretariat, in addition to its initial proposal, allocate additional resources for its implementation?  It might be useful to know the mechanism, by which mandates adopted after being proposed by the Secretariat were responded to, particularly in respect to mandates with budget implications.

Mr. FOX (Australia) said that, in the absence of a formal evaluation and appraisal system, he wanted the Registrar to explain, for the record, how the Registry managed under-performance by staff.

Mr. SACH said that last December the initial budget for the Registry had been considered, including additional translation posts.  As for the requirements under recommendation 1, a standard programme budget implications procedure could be followed, depending on the decision by the Committee.  Another way to deal with the recommendation was for the Committee to take it into account for the proposed budget for 2002-2003.  In such a case, the question of a related appropriation would be handled next autumn, and not in the context of the current session.

As for appointment of the Registrar, he said that the question could be further discussed in informal consultations.  However, the arrangements for the Court were governed by the Charter, and the Statute of the International Court provided a very detailed procedure for that appointment, stating that “the Court shall appoint its Registrar” and other posts deemed necessary.  There were no provisions allowing the Secretary-General to appoint the Registrar.

The Registrar, Mr. COUVREUR, said that during a recent discussion on instituting a staff appraisal system, the Court had expressed its willingness to consider that issue again if the number of staff increased rapidly enough.  However, it was not up to him to determine what the total number of staff would have to be in order to require an appraisal system.  Responding to the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania’s comments, he said that there was no question of the staff of the Court being considered “above” other members of the Organization.  Indeed ,while Court staff were not considered Secretariat officials, they were still subject to the United Nations Charter.

As for what happens when a Court staff member did not complete tasks satisfactorily, he said that, first, the occurrence was verbally brought to that staffer’s attention.  If the work continued to be unsatisfactory, a note was placed in the file of that person.  If problems persisted, other measures could be taken, possibly leading to the non-renewal of that staff member’s contract.

Inspector BOUAYAD-AGHA disagreed with Mr. Couvreur on the creation of a staff appraisal system. Indeed, the Inspection Unit had been trying to convince the Court of the necessity of instituting such a system for years, but the Registry’s reaction to that suggestion and others, particularly on changing the term of office for the Registrar, made it appear that senior officials on the Court were “living in an ivory tower”.  He asked how the staff table could be at once large enough to necessitate the appointment of an administrative assistant and too small to warrant performance appraisals.

ARATA FUJII (Japan) said Japan generally shared the concerns of the representatives of the United States and Australia, particularly on the establishment of a staff appraisal system.  He also felt that every United Nations body should report to the Assembly, particularly on budgetary matters.

Mr. CHANDRA (India) said that he had referred to a lack of clarity in one part of the Inspectors’ statement circulated today.  Regarding the performance appraisal system, on the one hand, the statement said that the Inspectors were satisfied with the Court’s comments on the introduction of such a system, and on the other, it referred to regret that the Inspectors could not agree with the Court’s comments on the staff appraisal. He would be grateful for a clarification.

As to the terms of office of the Registrar and his Deputy, the Court had stated that it had not seen fit to adopt the recommendations, since it had autonomy and the power to appoint its own staff. He was looking forward to hearing other delegations’ opinions on that matter in informal consultations.  He did not object to shortening the term of office, if that would help to correct the deficiencies.

Other Matters

Mr. NESSER (Sweden) inquired when the statement of United Nations Controller Jean-Pierre Halbwachs would be available to the delegations.

The Committee’s Secretary, JOSEPH ACAKPO-SATCHIVI, replied that the statement would be distributed this afternoon. 

* *** *