Re: [soac-mapo] Comments on 4.2 and 5.4

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 20 September 2010 21:13, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:


> On 20 Sep 2010, at 18:33, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
>

> > Dear all,
> >
> > As promised on the call, please find below comments regardig Rec 4.2 and
> 5.4.
> >
> > On 4.2 : Some members of the group have highlighted the importance of not
> giving the Board the responsibiity to pick and choose the individual experts
> : were it done on a case by case basis, this could lead to a bias in the
> selection of experts. The constitution of a permanent panel could be
> explored.
>

There will always be bias in the selection of the experts.

Given that we have gone from a binding DRSP to a non-binding expert advisory
(without agreement on whether experts are expected to give advice), the
nature of the bias is far less critical than it used to be. The expert
research would provide an objective history of international law and treaty
related to the string. Personally, I am satisfied that the experts have
fulfilled their purpose once they answer that role, and after reading the
discussion I have come to agree that demanding an approve/reject
recommendation from the experts is taking us too far backwards in the
direction of the now-disgraced DRSP concept.

Without an accept/reject mandate, the task of the experts is clear and
objective -- does the string run afoul of international law and treaty --
and as such, the level of bias involved in the selection of the experts is
not sufficient to bother me. The remaining question -- if the Board doesn't
pick them, then who? -- is IMO worth the bother if the experts arer kept in
an advisory role.


> I had thought that the idea was that there would be one set of experts for
> the round. Not a set for each objection.  Did I completely misunderstand?
>


As an implementation issue, the question is left open for the Board.




> > On 5.4 : At least one participant in the working group highlighted that a
> simple majority in the Board should not be sufficient to approve a string if
> the recommendation of the expert panel is that the string is contrary to
> principles of International law. A super majority should be required.
>


Not to be rude, but I don't think anyone else (or any group) who have been
the objector to a point has been invited to provide minority statements that
are part of the recommendation document. Why start now? Is this fair?

 - Evan