Remedying Asymmetric Diplomacy at the United Nations: Towards an Eco-Social Contract

This contribution is published as part of the UNRISD Think Piece Series, The Time is Now! Why We Need a New Eco-Social Contract for a Just and Green World. We invite experts from academia, advocacy and policy practice to critically explore the various manifestations of our broken social contracts, the root causes of breakdown and the role of rising inequalities, as well as the drivers of positive change. We ask not only which policies and institutional reforms are needed, but also which actors can do what to overcome inequalities and build greater social and climate justice. The series is part of the Global Research and Action Network for a New Eco-Social Contract.

Costas M. Constantinou is Professor of International Relations at the University of Cyprus and Visiting Fellow at UNRISD.

In the 21st century, the pluralization of diplomacy is evident. No longer restricted to the management of interstate and intergovernmental relations, diplomacy has shifted from being the privilege of an exclusive club to networked multilateralism, becoming a transprofessional activity. A plethora of non-state actors―minority groups, Indigenous peoples, peasant movements, NGOs, human rights activists―currently interact and network with states in different UN and non-UN settings. In the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the values of inclusivity and participation have been flagged through the motto of “leaving no one behind”, while SDG 16 underscores the importance of promoting “peaceful and inclusive societies” and building “effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. What kind of diplomacy should be practiced to attain such ambitious goals at the international level? And, in turn, how could multilateral diplomacy at the UN be steered to negotiate a new eco-social contract that is desperately needed to rebound and build a sustainable and just world in post-pandemic times?

Between representation and meaningful participation

The ambition to “leave no one behind” could in principle be fulfilled by the right of all stakeholders to be represented in official multilateral settings, such as the Human Rights Council, the Forum on Minority Issues, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. For example, NGOs with ECOSOC consultative status have guaranteed access to sessions of the Human Rights Council and typically 90 to 120 seconds speaking time. Depending on the session and topic, this right may periodically be extended to representatives of communities without consultative status and even individual petitioners that protest a human rights violation and seek redress. However, merely appearing at a UN forum does not suffice for effective advocacy.

Thus, non-state participants in UN forums can also organize side events where they can develop their positions, interact and advocate through targeted speeches and exhibitions. The recent increased use of virtual formats for participation in UN meetings has improved geographical reach and enabled non-state actors with limited resources to present their causes both at and beyond official events. It has, however, been recognized that digital participation offers less opportunities for effective advocacy and impactful interaction than in-person events (see the 2021 CAGI Survey on the Impact of Covid-19 on Geneva-Based NGOs). Also, worryingly, UN forums have been compromised by member states unjustly blocking the participation of non-state representatives.

To be sure, effective diplomatic engagement goes beyond mere representation and communication of interests and positions. Meaningful participation for non-state actors means the right to be fully consulted; afforded institutional tools to function adequately in asymmetric forums; allowed to submit, advocate for and negotiate proposals; as well as give informed consent over decisions and the development of legal instruments that affect lives and habitats.

Of course, not all the power asymmetries in negotiation and decision making, both between member states and non-state actors, can be redressed given the institutional constraints of the UN system. But there are some institutional mechanisms in place which can help reduce asymmetries, such as the diplomatic power of the UN Special Rapporteurs. They engage with stakeholders outside the sovereignty frame of member states, giving them more latitude in their work. They consult with stakeholders who have first-hand knowledge and issue-specific expertise, including meetings in situ and outside UN offices. The reports of Special Rapporteurs can subsequently steer negotiations at official UN forums and their recommendations can affect, and sometimes even form the basis of, soft or hard law such as declarations, resolutions and conventions that member states vote on.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other People Working in Rural Areas is a good example where grassroots campaigns received institutional support initially from the Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Food, and then from the Bolivian chairmanship that ensured peasant delegations were given the same time and opportunity as member states to voice their position.

Equalizing diplomacy at the UN

The idea that eco-social contracts should be created through participatory, bottom-up and inclusive processes and aim to reach reasoned agreements speaks to the aspiration of equalizing asymmetric relations and making the global polity more democratic. But not all forums are the same. At the UN alone we can distinguish (at least) two different types, whilst there are also intersections and overlaps depending on the topic. On the one hand, there are forums of justification where legal agreements are negotiated and where each side primarily makes its case. These forums may require skillful drafting and/or constructive ambiguities and flexibility of interpretation. An example of this is the General Assembly and Security Council meetings and resolutions, where representatives are primarily advocates who justify their position and bargain across the board on the basis of received instructions to reach preassigned objectives.

There are, on the other hand, UN forums where reflection rather than justification predominates. At such gatherings, like the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the voices of experts and affected communities are prioritized, emphasizing the need to gain knowledge, understand the predicaments of interlocutors, analyse how different policies and options affect them, and provide advice and recommendations to ECOSOC.

A good example combining forums of justification and reflection is the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Even though it has an intergovernmental character and justificatory format for member states’ activity concerning the SDGs, it is combined with a commitment to permanently consult with all Major Groups and other Stakeholders via various assemblies and platforms.

In lieu of a radical democratic reform of the UN–that is, making it more an organization of peoples rather than states–enhancing the meaningful participation of less powerful actors may be achieved in two ways. These suggestions follow from discussions on how to democratize deliberation, that is, how to create better conditions for actors to communicate their positions and have a level playing field for dialogue.

First, power asymmetry can be partially rectified by interconnecting forums of justification and forums of reflection, both within and outside the UN system. Here, as already explained, the role of Chairs and Rapporteurs cannot be overestimated, and in particular their ability to recognize sites where more participatory or focus assemblies take place and to connect them to the official forum and debate. The digital transformation of diplomacy makes inclusion easier (such as through a UN extranet registering the oral statements and written submissions of all stakeholders) in otherwise partisan advocacy forums where balancing the interests of the major or powerful stakeholders may dominate the discussion.

Second, power asymmetry can be lessened by safeguarding discursive representation, which means ensuring that all relevant discourses are equally and adequately represented and explained. Discursive representation can help to equalize power imbalances, not least in the case of Governmental Non-Governmental Organizations (GONGOS)―groups sponsored by governments pretending to represent civil society―that have proliferated and increasingly coopt subaltern voices in UN forums. Discursive representation is especially important when new or emerging norms are broached into the international arena, which may not only challenge state interests but entire legal systems and established ways of thinking and operating.

The UN Harmony with Nature Programme is a good example of the UN providing a dynamic platform that seeks to cross-fertilize the dialogues of the General Assembly, Secretary-General reports and state policies, with the discursive representations of a network of experts from around the world (jurists, ethicists, scientists, activists) who speak for the rights of nature and promote earth jurisprudence.

Towards an eco-social contract

A new vision of an eco-social contract to support transformative change worldwide needs to replace our old social contract―that is, the notion that underpins modern liberal societies and social welfare provision, but which falls short of fully including everyone and protecting the global commons. Our current social contract has not addressed all forms of inequality or benefited all groups equally, including women, migrants, informal workers, Indigenous peoples and the non-human world. Indeed, the major criticism of social contract theory is that it legitimates, on the basis of presupposed consent and expected obligation, systems of governance that oppress marginalized groups as well as intensifying resource extraction and the destruction of nature.

Unlike the current social contract, therefore, the eco-social contract should strive to be fully inclusive and participatory, not least in the context of the SDGs that steer a path towards a more eco-centric future. In other words, it ought to commit to equitable diplomatic engagement and minimizing inequality already at the deliberative stage. It makes a real difference who comes to negotiate how to make the world more equal and just, and following from that recognizing whose voice might be muted or only included as a token to provide legitimacy to specific legal instruments and action plans. Striving for symmetrical diplomacy is crucial and requires perseverance and innovation if our contractual commitments extend―as they should―to the non-human world and to making peace with nature.