LEGAL COMMITTEE TAKES UP ISSUES FROM REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION; ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS REVIEWED

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Sixth Committee

14^th Meeting (AM)

LEGAL COMMITTEE TAKES UP ISSUES FROM REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION;

ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS REVIEWED

Text Also Offered on Third Parties Hurt by Imposition of Sanctions

The Sixth Committee (Legal), this morning, took up three draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations as it began its consideration of the International Law Commission’s report on its fifty-fifth session.  (The draft articles defining scope, use of terms and general principles had been adopted at the Commission’s session in Geneva from 5 May to 6 June and from 7 July to 8 August.)

The General Assembly established the International Law Commission at its second session in 1947 to give effect to Article 13 (1a) of the United Nations Charter, namely, to promote international political cooperation and encourage the progressive development and codification of international law.

Enrique Candioti (Argentina), Chairman of the International Law Commission, introduced the Commission’s report to the Committee.  He drew particular attention to questions raised by Assembly decisions on documentation and honorariums.  He said it was inappropriate to ask the Commission to fix the maximum length of its reports.  The Commission was fully aware of needing to achieve economies when possible.

Also, he said, the decision to reduce honorariums was inconsistent with the principle of fairness and the spirit of service with which Commission members contributed time and approached their work.  Of special concern was the effect on the special rapporteurs from developing countries, since the honorariums supported the research they needed to carry out.

Summarizing the three draft articles, he said article 1 dealt with the scope of “international responsibility” and examined the responsibility of international organizations under international law, not municipal.  Article 2 defined “international organization” based on three elements --- its mode of establishment, its legal personality and the inclusion of States in its membership.

Finally, he said, article 3, on general principles, dealt with an international organization’s responsibility for its internationally wrongful acts.  The principle was modelled on articles applicable to State responsibility.  Governments had been asked to submit views on the question of attribution, which was not covered in the three draft articles but was on the Commission’s agenda for next year.

The representative of Japan said the decision not to use the draft articles on State responsibility as a model for organizations was an appropriate one since that would have been simplistic.  At the same time, international law prescribed rights and obligations of Member States.  Both internal State law and an organization’s rules were involved.  The definition of “rules” in the draft articles should encompass the wide variety of the rules of all existing international organizations.

Austria’s representative said the International Law Commission should refer to the rules of an organization when it came to the question of attributing conduct to international organizations, so as to mirror the approach adopted in the text on State responsibility.  The definition of “rules of the organization”, as it appeared in the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and international organizations, or between international organizations, could suffice.

In addition this morning, the representative of Egypt introduced to the Sixth Committee a draft resolution on the report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization.  By the draft, the Assembly would decide that the Special Committee would next meet from 29 March to 8 April, when it would be asked to consider as a priority the issue related to the Charter and assistance to third States affected by sanctions.

The Chairman of the Sixth Committee, Lauro Baja (Philippines), read out a letter received from Julian Hunte (Saint Lucia), President of the General Assembly, commending a Committee initiative to enliven and focus the debate on the Law Commission report.  The initiative dovetailed well with ongoing efforts to revitalize the Assembly, the Assembly President noted.

The Commission’s special rapporteur on the responsibility of international organizations, Giorgio Gaja, responded to comments made by delegations.

Also speaking this morning were the representatives of Italy (speaking twice, on his own behalf and on behalf of the European Union), Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Denmark (also on behalf of the Nordic countries), the Netherlands, China, France and Germany.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 28 October, to continue considering the responsibility of international organizations as set out in the report of the International Law Commission.

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this morning to begin a week-long debate on the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its two-part fifty-fifth session which took place in Geneva, from 5 May to 6 June and from 7 July to 8 August this year (document A/58/10).  The substantive debates will begin with the topic “Responsibility of international organizations”.

International Law Commission Report

Other subjects covered by the Commission at its session were diplomatic protection; international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (international liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities); unilateral acts of States; reservations to treaties; shared natural resources; and fragmentation of international law:  difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. 

Responsibility of International Organizations

The International Law Commission decided to include the topic in its long-term programme of work at its fifty-second session, in 2000.  Work began on the subject at the request of the General Assembly in its resolution 56/82.

At the session under review, the Commission considered the first report of its special rapporteur on the topic which dealt with the scope of the work and general principles concerning responsibility of international organizations.  Three draft articles proposed by the rapporteur were considered and later adopted, together with commentaries, on the recommendation of the Commission’s drafting committee.  The articles cover the scope of the draft articles (article 1), use of terms (article 2) and general principles (article 3).

Diplomatic Protection

The Commission considered the fourth report of the special rapporteur on the topic, covering draft articles 17 to 22 on the diplomatic protection of corporations and shareholders and of other legal persons.  It further adopted draft article 8 [10] “exhaustion of local remedies” -– which are by right open to an injured person before judicial or administrative courts or bodies.  Other articles also adopted by the Commission were article 9 [11] “category of claims” and article 10 [14] “exceptions to the local remedies rule”.

International Liability

Concerning the topic of international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (international liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities), the Commission considered its special rapporteur’s first report analysing the existing liability of various regimes.  The report offered conclusions for the Commission’s consideration.

Unilateral Acts of States

The Commission considered the sixth report of its special rapporteur focused on the unilateral act of recognition.  It also adopted the recommendations of a working group dealing with the definition of the scope of the topic and the method of work.

Reservations to Treaties

The Commission adopted 11 draft guidelines (with 3 model clauses) dealing with withdrawal and modification of reservations.  It also considered its special rapporteur’s eighth report and referred to its drafting committee five draft guidelines dealing with withdrawal and modification of reservations and interpretative declarations.

Shared Natural Resources

The Commission considered its special rapporteur’s preliminary report on the topic, setting out the background and proposing to limit the scope of the study to confined transboundary groundwaters, oil and gas, with work to proceed initially on confined transboundary groundwaters.

Fragmentation of International Law

In relation to the topic of “fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law”, the Commission’s study group established a schedule of work for the remaining part (2003-2006) of the present quinquennium.

Other Decisions and Conclusions

On the question of honorariums, the Commission re-emphasized that the General Assembly’s decision in resolution 56/272 was in direct contradiction to the conclusions and recommendations of the report of the Secretary-General in document A/53/643 and that it was taken without the Commission being consulted.  It also said the decision was not consistent, in procedure or in substance, with either the principle of fairness on the basis of which the United Nations conducted its affairs or with the spirit of service with which Commission members contributed their time and approached their work.  The Commission stressed that the Assembly resolution especially affected special rapporteurs, in particular those from developing countries, as it compromised the support for their necessary research work.

On its work methods, the Commission said it was continuing to apply cost-saving measures in organizing its work programme and also reviewing work methods to identify further cost-effective efficiency gains.

According to the Commission’s report, its next 10-week split session -- its fifty-sixth -– will take place at the United Nations Office in Geneva next year from 3 May to 4 June and from 5 July to 6 August.

The International Law Commission was established by the General Assembly at its second session in 1947 to give effect to Article 13 (1a) of the United Nations Charter, namely to promote international cooperation in the political field and encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification.

Officers of International Law Commission

Officers of the Commission are:  Enrique Candioti (Argentina), Chairman; Teodor Melescanu (Romania), First Vice-Chairman; Choung II Chee (Republic of Korea), Second Vice-Chairman; James L. Kateka (United Republic of Tanzania), Chairman of the Drafting Committee, and William Mansfield (New Zealand), Rapporteur.  The enlarged bureau of the Commission is composed of the officers of its fifty-fifth session; the previous Chairmen of the Commission (J.C. Baena Soares, Z. Galicki, P.C.R. Kabatsi, Alain Pellet, P.S. Rao, R. Rosenstock and

C. Yamada); and the Special Rapporteurs, C.J.R. Dugard, G. Gaja, Alain Pellet, V. Rodriguez Cedeno and C. Yamada.

On 5 May 2003, the Commission elected Roman A. Kolodkin (Russian Federation), Constantin P. Economides (Greece), and Teodor V. Melescanu (Romania) to fill the casual vacancies in the Commission’s membership arising from the death of Valery Kuznetzov (Russian Federation) and the election of Bruno Simma (Germany) and Peter Tomka (Slovakia) to the International Court of Justice.  On 7 July 2003, the Commission elected Michael J. Matheson (United States) to fill the casual vacancy following the resignation of Robert Rosenstock.

International Law Commission Report

LAURO LIBOON BAJA (Philippines), Chairman of the Sixth Committee, acknowledged the contribution of the International Law Commission to the progressive development and codification of international law in accordance with Article 13 of the United Nations Charter.  He said that, as in past years, the Commission’s report had always been a high point in the proceedings of the Sixth Committee.  The exchange of views in the Committee on the Commission’s annual reports had always been substantive.

This year, he said, the Commission had continued to make progress on a number of topics on its agenda, including some new topics which were added to its agenda last year.

Statements

ENRIQUE CANDIOTI (Argentina), Chairman of the International Law Commission, introducing the Commission’s report, drew particular attention to two issues relating to its documentation and the honorariums traditionally paid to its members.  Commenting on the new regulations on page limits contained in a report of the Secretary-General (document A/57/289) and General Assembly resolution 57/21(15), he said that by its Statute the Commission must justify its proposals on the evidence of existing law and the current needs of the international community.  The Commission considered it inappropriate to attempt in advance, and in abstracto, to fix the maximum length of its reports and those of its special rapporteurs or its working documents.  The new regulations should, therefore, not apply to it.  The Commission and its special rapporteurs were fully conscious of the need to achieve economies whenever possible in the overall volume of documentation.

He reiterated the Commission’s view that the decision relating to honorariums taken without the Commission being consulted was inconsistent with the principle of fairness, and with the spirit of service with which Commission members contributed their time and approached their work.  The Commission was particularly concerned about the effect of the decision on the special rapporteurs from developing countries as it compromised the support for their necessary research work.

On the topic of “Responsibility of international organizations” being taken up by the Sixth Committee this morning, he said the special rapporteur who examined the question had proposed three draft articles which had been adopted by the Commission.  The reference to “international responsibility” in article 1 made it quite clear that the draft articles examined the responsibility of international organizations only under international law.  Issues of responsibility or liability under municipal law were not as such covered by the topic.

The term “international organization” defined in article 2 was not intended for all purposes, but only for the application of the topic.  The Commission identified three elements as essential in order for an international organization to fall within the scope of the topic:  the mode of establishment; the organization’s legal personality, and its membership which should include “States”.

He said article 3 dealt with general principles that applied in most frequent cases occurring within the scope of the draft articles as defined in 1 and 2:  those in which an international organization was internationally responsible for its internationally wrongful acts.  That principle was modelled on those applicable to State responsibility.  He said the Commission invited views of governments on the question of attribution which were not covered in the three draft articles.

Earlier, the Commission Chairman expressed appreciation to its secretariat, and to the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs, for their competence, efficiency and valuable assistance to the Commission.  He praised the importance of the role of the Codification Division in the Commission’s work.

GIUSEPPE NESI (Italy), speaking for the European Union and its associated States, said the European Community took a great interest in the topic of the responsibility of international organizations and recognized that it might have particular relevance to its own activities.  He said the Community was often described as differing from the “classical” model of an international organization in a number of ways.  It was not only a forum for its member States to settle or organize their mutual relations, but it was also an actor in its own right on the international scene.  It was party to many international agreements with third parties within its areas of competence.  Quite often the Community concluded such agreements together with its member States, each in accordance with its own competencies.  It was also involved in international litigation, in particular in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO). 

The European Community was regulated by a legal order of its own, he said, establishing a common market and organizing the legal relations between its members, their enterprises and individuals.  Legislation enacted under the Community Treaty formed part of the national laws of the member States and thus it was implemented by their authorities and courts.  It was important, he said, that the International Law Commission draft articles fully reflecting the institutional and legal diversity of structures that the community of States had already established.  Established notions such as “regional economic integration organization” reflected in modern treaty practice should be considered when substantive questions were being dealt with in the Commission’s draft articles. 

He said all international organizations needed to recognize their international responsibility in the event of wrongful acts.  That did not exclude the possibility of differences being taken into account in the future work of the Commission concerning the responsibility of international organizations.  He added that common sense practical solutions were needed to cover a wide variety of situations as well as the activities of organizational structures in a range of fields. 

IRMA ERTMAN (Finland), speaking also for Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (the Nordic group), referred to the “Other Decisions” section of the report.  She said she was aware of the sensitivity relating to the Commission’s future.  The monumental work on State responsibility that had been completed in 2001 had been the last item from the 1949 long-term work programme; it had been a last major codification project in the area of general international law.  The Committee’s role was to give the Commission political guidance. 

The Commission’s work plan for the next year promised a substantive report, particularly on the fragmentation of international law, which was an interesting innovation compared to the Commission’s traditional approach to codification and progressive development of international law.  A lighter and more variable agenda could involve changes in the Commission’s modalities of work.  The proposal by Austria and Sweden with regard to consideration of the report would lead to a better debate.  Other proposals for better and more direct interaction between Commission members, special rapporteurs, legal advisers and Committee members were also well-taken.  Informal consultations were preferable to the formal debate required by tradition, which was hardly conducive to a meaningful exchange of views.

Reviewing parts of the report, she said the Commission’s proposal to redefine the scope of study on unilateral acts was viable but should be dropped from the agenda; the Commission’s efforts could be of better use on other matters.  The issues of responsibility of international organizations and shared natural resources would be addressed later.  When codifying diplomatic protection, the underpinnings of legal certainty and predictability of existing law must not be undermined.  New topics on the agenda must address areas where legal regulation was both lacking and desirable.  The issue of protecting vulnerable populations was one of those.  The Commission’s work should be carried out in close consultation with other players, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

HANS KLINGENBERG (Denmark), also speaking for the Nordic countries, dealt with the section on responsibility of international organizations.  He said the complexity of this topic had been demonstrated in its differentiation from the question of State responsibility.  Similar issues raised by the two did not necessarily lead to identical conclusions, but using the same approach would bring consistency to the rules developed and it would also move the work dynamically forward.

Commenting on the three draft articles relating to scope, definition and general principles of international organizations’ responsibility, he said next year’s topic -- on “attribution of conduct” -- was the most difficult aspect of the issue, both legally and politically.  Draft rules would need to carefully reflect a realistic, pragmatic and comprehensive perception of international relations, the interaction of States and international organizations today.  While State responsibility rules provided inspiration, new ground must be broken when defining to what extent a State or State organ could act as an organ of an international organization.  The wide variety of international organizations with their different mandates and heterogeneous interactions with States were parameters to be borne in mind.

Turning to attribution of conduct of peacekeeping forces, he said the theoretical difficulties would be more concrete but no less difficult to solve.  The answer would depend on answers to sub-issues based on the building blocks that had already been laid down.  For example, in joint operations where a State or States provided forces in support of a United Nations operation, recourse would be obtained by the modalities of the cooperation, including operational command and control arrangements, as well as by an analysis of the activities that had led to the wrongful act.  Also, the question of concurrent responsibility might have to be examined.

HANS KLINGENBERG (Denmark), also speaking for the Nordic countries, dealt with the section on responsibility of international organizations.  He said the complexity of this topic had been demonstrated in its differentiation from the question of State responsibility.  Similar issues raised by the two did not necessarily lead to identical conclusions, but using the same approach would bring consistency to the rules developed and it would also move the work dynamically forward.

Commenting on the three draft articles relating to scope, definition and general principles of international organizations’ responsibility, he said next year’s topic -- on “attribution of conduct” -- was the most difficult aspect of the issue, both legally and politically.  Draft rules would need to carefully reflect a realistic, pragmatic and comprehensive perception of international relations, the interaction of States and international organizations today.  While State responsibility rules provided inspiration, new ground must be broken when defining to what extent a State or State organ could act as an organ of an international organization.  The wide variety of international organizations with their different mandates and heterogeneous interactions with States were parameters to be borne in mind.

Turning to attribution of conduct of peacekeeping forces, he said the theoretical difficulties would be more concrete but no less difficult to solve.  The outcome would depend on answers to sub-issues based on the building blocks that had already been laid down.  For example, in joint operations where a State or States provided forces in support of a United Nations operation, recourse would be obtained by the modalities of the cooperation, including operational command and control arrangements, as well as by an analysis of the activities that had led to the wrongful act.  Also, the question of concurrent responsibility might have to be examined.

HANS WINKLER (Austria) said he wondered whether entities created by international treaties but which were rather embryonic in nature, such as treaty organs or secretariats, would fall under the scope of the draft articles on international organizations.  He said he recalled, as an example, the recent establishment of a permanent secretariat of the Alpine Convention in Innsbruck, Austria.  The separate and additional requirement of an international organization “possessing its own international legal personality” was problematic, he said.

As host to several international organizations, he said, Austria had closely examined practical examples, such as the case of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  He said negotiations in the OSCE over the past years to convert it into a formal organization endowed with legal personality had so far demonstrated a divergence of opinion.  Another case was the status of the European Union.  While the international legal status of the European Community was not questioned, he said the legal status of the Union was still under discussion, and in view of the ongoing negotiations in the intergovernmental conference it would remain so for quite a while.

On the question of attribution of conduct to international organizations, he said his delegation believed that the draft articles should refer to the rules of the organizations concerned.  That would mirror the approach adopted in the context of the text on State responsibility.  Austria could accept the definition of “rules of the organization” as it appeared in the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between international organizations.  In the case of peacekeeping forces, he added, it would be extremely difficult to foresee generally applicable provisions in the draft articles.  Even if peacekeeping forces were considered subsidiary organs of the United Nations, some of their activities could not be attributable to the Organization.  He said the International Law Commission should stick to elaborating general criteria for the definition of organs of an international organization.

On other issues in the Commission’s report, he said the need for thorough reform of the structures and working methods of the United Nations should not end with the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council.  The structure and working methods of the Commission should be subject to honest, open debate with no taboos.  He hoped members of the Commission would participate actively in ensuring that the Commission continued to play a relevant role.

KEIICHI HAYASHI (Japan) said using the term “rules” of the international organization in the attribution of responsibility required the emphasis to be placed on how widely those rules varied.  The difficulty pointed out by the Special Rapporteur in making the analogy of internal laws of a State and rules of an international organization was noteworthy.  The decision not to use the draft article on State responsibility as a model for organizations was an appropriate one.  It would have been simplistic.  For example, the Charter was clearly an organization’s rule while, at the same time, international law prescribed rights and obligations of Member States.  The status of internal State law and the rules of an organization thus had to be considered.  And since those rules varied broadly, careful consideration must be given to defining “rules” in the draft articles so as to encompass the wide variety of the rules of all existing international organizations.

JOHAN G. LAMMERS (Netherlands) said close attention should be paid both to the text of the definition of an international organization and the commentary given on the topic in the Commission’s report.  The term “international organization” referred to a form of international cooperation and the definition should, therefore, be changed accordingly.  He said the proposed definition reflected reality where it was not limited to organizations established by a treaty.  Referring to the commentary in the report, he said organizations could not be created through decisions of the United Nations General Assembly which were not externally binding.  It was too bold to take the view that the United Nations General Assembly could create a new organization by a resolution.

He said there was need for more precise definition of what was meant by “members” of an international organization, since in certain circumstances they might be held responsible for wrongful acts committed by “their” organization.  Responsibility for wrongful acts should be limited to full members and not associate or affiliate members, he said.

IVO BRAGUGLIA (Italy), speaking on responsibility of international organizations, said the International Law Commission seemed intent on avoiding an earlier mistake by not sticking too closely to a previous model.  The work on international organization responsibility was tight, but it reflected well on the work that had been done with respect to State responsibility.  When considering attribution and referring to the rules of an organization, he said, consideration should be given not just to the internal rules but the organization’s customary practice.  Already established practice could be a critical factor in attribution.  When considering the wrongful acts of peacekeeping forces, it might be necessary in some cases to attribute acts to both the United Nations and the State.  Shared responsibility may also have to be considered.

LIU ZHENMIN (China) said his country supported a redefinition of an “international organization” and the core issue should be “intergovernmental” or “inter-State”.  States were the major actors in international relations and the major makers of international rules.  Next to States, he said, intergovernmental international organizations also played an important role in international relations.  The definition of international organization should include the term “intergovernmental” or “inter-State”. The work on the topic of “responsibility of international organizations” should have as its main task the codification of the responsibility of intergovernmental international organizations.  On the question of recognition of legal personality of an organization, he said States had the fundamental right to determine if an organization possessed legal personality based on an analysis of all the objective facts relating to that organization.

He emphasized that even though a definition was specifically proposed for the topic “responsibility of international organizations”, the Commission should view the question from the perspective of codification and progressive development of international law.

RONNY ABRAHAM (France) said the decision to solicit views of governments had been a good one but the Secretariat should not consider the Commission Web site to be a substitute for hard copy information.  With regard to fragmentation of international law, he said the report was vague about what the Commission’s work entailed.  If the Commission were to gather examples on the matter, that would be a divergence from the Commission’s traditional work of codification.

On responsibility of international organizations, he said the articles adopted had clarified the question.  The Commission had struck a good balance between a terse statement and one that elaborated the point to the extent of being too restrictive.  Relations between States and organizations should be taken into consideration.  If the scope were to be broadened, an extremely complex area would open up, such as the share in responsibility or sequence of responsibilities with regard to acts.

On the attribution angle, he said the 1949 Vienna Convention was an acceptable basis for dealing with the issue.  The complexity had already been shown in the interaction between general international law and internal administrative law.

THOMAS LAUFER (Germany) said the Commission had to clarify the conditions for attributing acts of organs of an international organization to its member States, especially in the fields where those member States had transferred parts of their competencies to that organization.  An example, he said, was the case of member States of the European Union.  That and other questions had to be decided first by the Commission.  Specific situations such as peacekeeping operations were also important but did not seem to be a matter of first priority.

On the question of “diplomatic protection”, he said his country welcomed the progress achieved by the Commission so far.  Turning to the draft articles, he said Germany agreed with the wording of article 1 which referred to diplomatic protection as the State’s own right and was aimed at a peaceful settlement after the occurrence of an internationally wrongful act of a State.  It considered that the basis for the exercise of diplomatic protection should not be limited. Regarding the conflict of competing rights to diplomatic protection, between the State of nationality of the agent and the organization, a pragmatic approach should be adopted.  The decisive criterion should be whether the internationally wrongful act was predominantly directed against the organization or the State of nationality of the acting agent.

The representative of Germany also addressed the Commission’s work on topics such as international liability, unilateral acts of States, reservations to treaties, shared natural resources.  On the issue of shared natural resources, Germany proposed that the Commission should focus on the elimination of certain ultra-hazardous as well as hazardous substances, and on the development of programmes for widespread technical assistance for the protection and restoration of groundwaters.

On the topic of fragmentation of international law, he said undertaking a comprehensive survey of the rules and mechanisms governing conflicts of law was the first step towards the endeavours to present solutions to some of the practical problems to be addressed.  Germany welcomed the future work programme presented by the Commission in its report.

GIORGIO GAJA, Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission on the topic of responsibility of international organizations, responded to some of the issues raised in the debate by delegations.  He said questions concerning definition and attributions of responsibility were still open; they could be taken up at the second reading of the draft articles.

Introduction of Draft

The representative of Egypt introduced a draft on the report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization (document A/C.6/58/L.18).  By the draft, the Assembly would decide that the Special Committee would next meet from 29 March to 8 April.  It would also be asked to give priority consideration to the issue related to the Charter and assistance to third States affected by sanctions.  Further, it would be asked to consider proposals for maintaining international peace and security so as to strengthen the role of the Organization; to keep the issue of peaceful settlement of disputes on the agenda; to consider proposals concerning the Trusteeship Council; and to continue giving priority consideration to enhancing its own effectiveness.

* *** *