Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations
recognition of the differences in power among States. Power implies influence and responsibility. An international organization that ignored this fact and did not possess the characteristics of a world government would be reduced to impotence and irrelevance. Accordingly, the Charter established a balance between these two facets of international justice with the respective compositions and functions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. This system is still in place 60 years later but is being subjected to increasing pressure and criticism. Concerns have prompted calls for reforming the composition of the Security Council, and questions have been raised regarding the role and effectiveness of the General Assembly. Voices urging the abandonment of the "one country, one vote" principle and its replacement (at least in some contexts) with a weighted voting system have so far been rather muted, but the recalcitrance shown by those Member States impatient with international democracy has effectively stripped the General Assembly of its powers. Particularly since the call for a new international economic order by developing and non-aligned countries in the mid-1970s gave rise to complaints of "a tyranny of the majority", the General Assembly has largely been reduced to an annual forum without much influence in world affairs. In the mid-1980s, the major contributors to the United Nations budget demanded substantial organizational reforms. The main elements of the reform effort, initiated by General Assembly resolution 41/21 3 of 19 December 1986 on the review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations, included a reduction in the number of international civil servants, a de facto freeze in the regular budget (financed by assessed contributions), and the understanding that the pursuit of consensus would replace recourse to voting in deliberative bodies, notably the General Assembly. These elements remain in place. In exchange for such major concessions by Member States interested in facilitating the growth and dynamic functioning of the United Nations, the main powers promised to ensure the provision of adequate, secure and predictable financing for the Organization's mandated activities. Some 20 years later, the United Nations is facing serious financial and other difficulties, and the pursuit of consensus continues to prevail in the General Assembly as well as in the Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary bodies. Reliance on consensus, as employed within this unique context, nullifies the "one country, one vote" principle and means that the decisions, resolutions and declarations of the United Nations, notably in matters relating to development and globalization, reflect the views and interests of a strong and influential minority. Obviously, powerful countries have a much greater capacity than weak countries to impose a consensus. In his report for the fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General states that "unfortunately, consensus (often interpreted as. requiring unanimity) has become an end in itself. It is sought first within each regional group