International Law, the Power of the Purse, and Speaking with One Voice: The Legal Cacophony Created by Withholding U.S. Dues from the United Nations
| Author | Britta A. Schnoor |
| Position | J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2007; M.A., United Nations University for Peace, 2004; B.A. |
| Pages | 1136-1181 |
-
Britta A. Schnoor: I would like to thank my family, friends, and teachers around the globe for constantly reaffirming my belief that a better world is both necessary and possible. I would also like to thank the Iowa Law Review editors and student writers for their many insightful comments and edits throughout the publication process. All errors and omissions are my own.
Page 1136
"Violating the Law of Nations is neither an appropriate nor effective technique to express exasperation with the United Nations."
- Representative James A. Leach1
"These provisions impermissibly infringe on the President's authority under the Constitution to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs."
- Bush Administration2
"[W]ith all due respect to the Executive Branch, the purse strings do not belong to you. They belong to the people and they are determined from here."
- Representative Darrell E. Issa3
When the victors of World War II came together to found the United Nations in 1945, they set forth their vision of a world free from the "scourge of war."4 The founders idealized an organization that would "maintain international peace and security," "develop friendly relations among nations," "achieve international co-operation in solving international problems," and "be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."5 In order to enable the organization to achieve these ideals, the founders signed on to the collective financial responsibility to fund the U.N. budget.6
Although the United States was among the founding countries-and thus accepted its collective financial responsibility as a treaty obligation when it became a member of the United Nations and signed the U.N. Charter-the United States has since circumvented its responsibility on multiple occasions. Most recently, the U.S. House of Representatives attempted to make the United States' payment of U.N. dues contingent on a series of wide-ranging reforms. On June 17, 2005, by a vote of 221 to 184, the House passed legislation to withhold dues from the United Nations should it fail to complete a series of extensive reforms within the next two years.7 Page 1137
Representatives named the legislation the "Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005" (the "Hyde Act") after the Act's author, then-House International Relations Committee ("HIRC")8 Chairman Henry J. Hyde.9
The Hyde Act was controversial because it mandated the United States to withhold fifty percent of its U.N. dues should the United Nations fail to implement at least thirty-two of the thirty-nine proposed reforms within two years.10 Another controversial provision would have required the President to veto any new or expanded peacekeeping operation until a series of peacekeeping reforms were certified.11
Supporters of the Hyde Act argued that threatening to withhold dues would be the only way to make the United Nations reform.12 In contrast, the diverse array of actors opposing the Hyde Act argued that the Act violated international law,13 usurped the executive branch's foreign-relations power,14 and signified a poor policy decision at a time when the United States was desperately in need of friends within the world community.15 Page 1138
The Hyde Act was not the first time the United States has considered withholding dues from the United Nations in order to make it reform.16Even so, the passage of the Act ignited criticism on multiple fronts. This Note examines the criticisms of the Hyde Act and similar withholdings and argues that single-branch withholdings of the United States' regularly assessed dues to the United Nations violate the international treaty obligation of collective financial responsibility under the U.N. Charter and are unconstitutional under the separation-of-powers doctrine.
Part II of this Note begins by giving a brief history of U.S. relations with the United Nations, including the history of withholdings,17 and then explains the basic international and domestic legal issues presented by the withholding of dues.18 Part III discusses the Hyde Act and various actors' reactions to it.19 Moving on to the substantive legal arguments, Part IV argues that any U.S. withholding of regularly assessed dues to the United Nations violates the United States' treaty obligations.20 Part IV also argues that, even if the U.S. government ignores the international law violation, the withholdings are unconstitutional under the foreign-affairs and separation- of-powers doctrines.21 Finally, Part V concludes by discussing the ways in which the international community could respond should the United States once again withhold its U.N. dues.22
The United States has played an important role in the United Nations from its birth. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt coined the term "United Nations" in the "Declaration by United Nations,"23 signed by twenty- Page 1139 six Allied Powers in confirmation of their commitment to fight together against the Axis Powers of World War II.24
For the next three years, the United States remained a key player within this coalition of "United Nations," working to bring an end to the war and develop a blueprint for the United Nations.25 As a result of his work within this coalition, President Roosevelt developed a deep commitment to multilateralism, explaining:
We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. . . . We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of
the human community. We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that "The only way to have a friend is to be one."26
Although President Roosevelt died before the signing of the U.N. Charter, President Truman continued his work, which culminated in the signing of the Charter by fifty states on June 26, 1945.27 The U.N. Charter was ratified as a treaty by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 89 to 2 on July 28, 1945 and entered into force on October 24, 1945.28 Throughout the following sixty- plus years of U.N. expansion,29 U.S. support for the United Nations has gone through multiple ebbs and flows, often defying President Roosevelt's and President Truman's pledges of commitment back in the 1940s.30
When the founders of the United Nations adopted the U.N. Charter, they agreed that all members of the General Assembly ("GA")-all U.N. member states-would share the financial responsibility to fund the organization's budget.31 Articles 17 through 19 of the U.N. Charter set forth the guidelines for U.N. financing. Article 17 states that "[t]he General Page 1140 Assembly shall consider and approve the budget"32 and that "[t]he expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly."33
The dues assessed by the GA include both the regular U.N. budget and U.N. peacekeeping contributions.34 Member states' assessments to the United Nations are based on the capacity-to-pay formula, meaning that the countries that have the largest Gross National Products ("GNP") are assessed the greatest percentage of dues.35 However, in order to ensure that the United Nations is not overly dependent on any single member state, the United Nations mandates that no country be required to pay more than a certain ceiling percentage of the total U.N. regular budget.36 Thus, although the U.S. GNP makes up considerably more than 22% of U.N. member states' GNPs combined,37 the United States only pays 22% (the current ceiling level) of the U.N. regular budget.38 Page 1141
The relationship between the United States and the United Nations has deteriorated greatly since the early days of multilateralism. One of the main areas in which the relationship has soured is financial responsibility. Since the 1980s, the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial