The United Nations Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
| Author | J. David Singer |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1957.tb01319.x |
| Published date | 01 December 1957 |
| Date | 01 December 1957 |
The
United Nations Advisory Committee
on
Administrative and
Budgetary Questions
By J.
DAVID
SINGER
Dr. Singer is currently working with the Department
of
Social Relations
at Harvard University under an International Relations Grant from the
Ford Foundation.
RITING
two years prior to the San Francisco Conference, C. Wilfred
W
Jenks observed that
“
effective international institutions, like strong
national government, presuppose an adequate foundation of financial strength,
the creation of which involves the addition of a new chapter
to
the law of
nations.”l No two agencies have been more deeply involved in the effort to
add that new chapter than the Supervisory Commission
of
the League
of
Nations and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary
Questions of the United Nations. The intent of this article is to examine
the development, composition and functions of the latter body-a relatively
unknown, but singularly important, agency of the United Nations.
CREATION
OF
THE
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Recalling the effectiveness of the Supervisory Commission in maintaining
the financial integrity
of
the League, the Australian delegation to the San
Francisco Conference had sought provision in the Charter for a similar
“
qualified advisory agency,” but the suggestion was rejected then on the
grounds that
“
the means by which the General Assembly should prepare
and approve the budget of the Organisation should be left for the General
Assembly to decide when it was
in
operation.’y2 Thus, the question was
referred, according to the
“
Interim Arrangements,” to the Preparatory
Commission, which, in turn, submitted the problem to its fourteen-member
Executive Committee, meeting in London during the weeks immediately
following San Francisco.
The document upon which discussion was based was a United Kingdom
working paper submitted to the Executive Committee’s Financial and
Budgetary Committee (Committee
7).
In proposing that the Secretary-
General‘s estimates be examined by some small agency prior to submission
to the Assembly, this paper pointed out that
“
a large body like the Assembly,
or any budgetary committee of the Assembly, would find it difficult to deal
adequately with the budget, unless the issues upon which its attention should
be particularly directed had already been analysed and reported upon.”
It
also
intended that this agency would
“
help
the
Secretariat
in presenting
propo~als.”~ Committee
7
readily accepted this reasoning, and in its Draft
Recommendations to the full Executive Committee proposed that the
Assembly appoint at its first session an Administrative and Budgetary Super-
visory Committee whose responsibilities would include
:
(a)
assisting the
Secretary-General in presenting administrative and budgetary proposals to
the Assembly,
(b)
examining the budget and reporting on
it
to the Assembly,
(c)
advising the Assembly in administrative
..
and budgetary matters,
395
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
(d)
examining, for the Assembly, the administrative (as opposed to operational)
budgets and the proposed fiscal arrangements of the specialised agencies, and
(e)
“
such other duties as may be assigned to it by the financial and
administrative regulations of the Organi~ation.”~
Before forwarding this
proposal to the parent Preparatory Commission, the Executive Committee
inserted one important restriction
:
the prospective agency would assist the
Assembly only
on
matters
“
other than personnel.”6
Several delegations to the Preparatory Commission were disturbed by what
appeared to be a lack of clarity concerning the Supervisory Committee’s r61e.
The United States delegation, upon which the Bureau of the Budget was well
represented, therefore offered
an
amendment intended to clarify the relation-
ship among the new agency, the Secretary-General, and the Assembly.
It
proposed that the title be changed
to
“
Advisory Committee,”
and
that its
function be limited to
assisting the
Assembly
in
its review of Secretariat
activities, rather than
supervising
such activities.
On
the other hand, however,
this amendment called for adding the r61e
of
“
considering and reporting
on
staff regulations to be established by the General Assembly.’y6
During subsequent deliberations, the Preparatory Commission agreed that
the Advisory Committee (the change of title had been readily accepted)
should not interfere with the Secretary-General’s authority in personnel
questions; rather,
it
would
“
deal with personnel matters only in their
budgetary aspects.” In brief then, instead of a body to “help the
Secretariat,” the Committee’s primary function would be to advise the
Assembly. The Preparatory Commission’s Report to the Assembly recom-
mended the following functions
:
(a)
to examine and report on the Secretary-
General’s budget estimates,
(b)
to advise the Assembly
on
any administrative
or budgetary matter referred to it,
(c)
to examine, for the Assembly, the
administrative budgets of the specialised agencies as well as proposals for
financial arrangements between the agencies and the Organisation, and
(d)
to consider and report to the Assembly
on
the auditor’s reports concerning
the accounts of both the U.N. and the agencies.’
In
January,
1946,
at the first session of the Assembly, the Fifth (Administra-
tive and Budgetary) Committee considered the recommendations of the
Preparatory Commission, as well as two proposals emanating from the
delegation of France. The first
of
the French motions, which would have
enlarged the authority of the Advisory Committee to permit
it
to advise the
Secretary-General and the Assembly
on
the “application” of the Staff
Regulations, was rejected on the grounds that it might make the Secretary-
General
“
subservient to the Advisory Committee.” The second, which
called for the Advisory Committee itself to conduct the audit, was likewise
defeated, since
it
had already been decided that independent external auditors
were to be appointed? Early
in
the second part of this first session, the
initial appointments to the Advisory Committee were made, though not
without considerable discussion concerning the nature of its membership.
COMPOSITION
OF
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Not only the rale and function
of
the Committee, but its composition, and
the nature of its membership, had received considerable attention during
396
To continue reading
Request your trial