Select committee inquiry
The UK’s influence in the UN inquiry
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“The UK has not been able to achieve everything it has set out to at the United Nations in 2017. The witnesses will explore the factors that might have affected the UK’s support and the wider trends in, and implications for, the UK’s influence at the UN.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What the government said
The government responded on 9 May 2018.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The Government "takes note" of the report, describes the ICJ election result as "very disappointing", and does not accept the conclusion that it is damaging to the UK's overall influence at the UN.
- The Government says it is "not appropriate" to share the internal FCO review with the Committee, and considers it has "already fulfilled its obligation of accountability" through a memorandum and ministerial appearances.
- It "rejects this conclusion" that the FCO was not sufficiently curious or persistent about voting. It will factor in "higher discount rates on pledges of support in priority elections" and take procedural steps to secure commitments that remain valid across multiple rounds.
- On informing the Committee of future UN campaigns, it will "do its best" to keep the Committee informed, in confidence, "subject to the broader requirements of UK diplomatic and bilateral interests". It is "in principle" supportive of confidential engagement with relevant parliamentary committees.
- It "rejects the notion that the UK's influence within the UN is at risk", citing recent election successes. It says the National Group, which is independent of Government, has yet to decide when the UK will next contest an ICJ election.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 5 December 2017 to its close on 9 May 2018.
- Oral evidence 2 sessions
- Report 28 Feb 2018
- Government response 9 May 2018
What it recommended 1 recommendation · 6 conclusions
16The inability of the Government to secure the election of the UK candidate to the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The inability of the Government to secure the election of the UK candidate to the ICJ in November 2017 was a failure of UK diplomacy in an area of traditional UK strength: international law and multilateral governance. It leaves the ICJ with no UK judge for the first time in its history. Strengthening the rules-based international 32 Oral Evidence on 30 January 2018, Global Britain (HC 780), Q48 33 Q12 34 Q15 35 QQ70–2 36 Q94 37 Q96 38 Q95 2017 elections to the International Court of Justice 11 system is a priority for the UK and will be an essential building block of ‘Global Britain’, and the lack of a UK judge on the ICJ is damaging to UK influence and the UK’s future foreign policy strategy. This is particularly regrettable given that the UN will have increased significance as a vehicle for UK foreign policy in the future.
17The FCO was surprised by the failure, and has rightly launched an internal exercise to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The FCO was surprised by the failure, and has rightly launched an internal exercise to identify the reasons and learn lessons for the future. It appeared unwilling to share the results of this review with the Committee, however. The Committee accepts that there are likely to be parts of the FCO review that are sensitive to individuals, and that detailed discussion of future electoral tactics could assist competitors and so should not be published. However, the Committee needs to be able to read the report of the review in order to assess both how the FCO has analysed this serious failure and the actions it is taking to prevent a repetition. Therefore, the FCO should make available to the Committee, in confidence, the full report of the lessons learned review. In addition, in order to fulfil its obligation of accountability to Parliament and the public, the FCO should supply to the Committee a version of its report for publication.
18We appreciate that the election was by secret ballot, but the FCO did not appear...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We appreciate that the election was by secret ballot, but the FCO did not appear to have been sufficiently curious or persistent in discovering why countries in the General Assembly may not have continued to support the UK candidate after the first round.
19In future, the FCO should inform the Committee in writing each time it intends to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In future, the FCO should inform the Committee in writing each time it intends to campaign for a UK person to be elected to a UN position, setting out in broad terms how it will be campaigning, how it will apply lessons drawn from previous experience, and how the post fits into its wider strategy.
20A future UK candidate to be a judge on the ICJ will need to be...
Concluded (the committee's words)
A future UK candidate to be a judge on the ICJ will need to be introduced widely around the UN well before the next election.
21While the Government must be responsible for leading any campaign to elect UK candidates to...
Recommended (the committee's words)
While the Government must be responsible for leading any campaign to elect UK candidates to international organisations, the Government should also mobilise parliamentary support, which could reach wider audiences and would bring additional experience of election campaigning to bear in support of UK interests. Many Members of Parliament are involved in the work of international parliamentary assemblies, and there are also parliamentary trade envoys to more than 50 countries appointed by the Prime Minister from across the political spectrum. These sources of expertise and experience appear underused by the FCO at present. The Committee, as well as other relevant parliamentary groups, should therefore be briefed by the Government about future UN election campaigns.
22It is possible that this failure was not a one-off but might instead be an...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It is possible that this failure was not a one-off but might instead be an indication that the influence of the UK within the UN is at risk. Possible reasons suggested for this were: increased influence of Asian countries; a change in the standing of, and attitudes to, the UK itself; and changes in the relative influence of the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Committee will be examining in more detail in the near future the standing and influence of the UK in the United Nations, as part of its work on ‘Global Britain’. 12 2017 elections to the International Court of Justice
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 2
- 7 Feb 2018No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗
- 19 Dec 2017No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗