Talk:United Nations System

United Nations and United Nations System?

Seriously, what's difference between United Nations and United Nations System? I mean is UNS a some kind of organization, mere concept or something else? -- Taku 01:33 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the United Nations refers just to the UN, but the United Nations System refers to the whole network of international organizations, treaties and conventions that were created by the United Nations. If you go to the UN the people who work there are always referring to the UN System, it is definitely distinct from the United Nations proper. Alex756 01:39 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I know this is an old post but maybe I can revive the discussion. I think Alex756's argument is not very sound. To say that "the United Nations refers just to the UN" is a circular reference, like saying "a bird is a bird is a bird". I think what Alex756 means instead is the United Nations Organization, which is composed of the six Principal Organs. I think that is much clearer than "UN" alone. If employed in this way, the term "UN System" would likewise convey a clearer meaning, namely, the "UN Principal Organs plus all subsidiary and related entities and agreements". I therefore suggest to change the terminology accordingly.Karl Magnus (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

INCB

Where does the International Narcotics Control Board fit into this? Rad Racer 05:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Put it beside the Commission for Narcotic Drugs. Alinor (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

REVIEWS

Whoever is responsible for the construction and the upkeep of this page did an OUSTANDING JOB in the description of THE UN SYSTEM. REVO2 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WTO UN link

I can't find any source linking WTO with the UN. Unlike the other "Related organizations" that are clearly linked to the UN - the WTO seems to be a completely separate organization (yes, multiple UN agencies are WTO observers and WTO is observer/participant in multiple UN agencies/organizations, but this is different that WTO to be "part of" the UN System). Alinor (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Also, [1], makes differentiation between "WTO" and "the UN Organizations". And I still can't find source showing WTO as a UN System organization. Alinor (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The WTO is not a member of the United Nations System, though its executive head is a member of the United Nations Chief Executives Board (CEB). The WTO's predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), was a de factor part of both the United Nations and the common system of salaries and benefits.新選組 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title? (capitalization)

Seems like "United Nations system", with "system" not capitalized, would be more in keeping with WP:MOS. Any objections to moving this article to that technically more correct name? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your comment earlier, but I think that System should be capitalized since it's part of a proper noun. Due to attribution issues, you can't cut and paste move an article like you did. However, if you'd like to propose that the page be moved you should start a WP:RM . TDL (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Not fixed... Apologies for the method. I've been having trouble with Twinkle's move function sometimes lately: it would not let me do a simple move. Substantive rationale: if you read through the article virtually every reference is to the "United Nations system". This is appropriate, in my opinion. The only exceptions are when there is a formal institution, such as the "United Nations System College System" or the governing board. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem! The reason you couldn't do a simple move was because your target name already had a history of its own. Simple moves can only be made when the target does not exist, or is a redirect with a single edit.

The UN seems to refer to it with capitals ([2], [3]) which is why I'd presume that it's a proper noun. But I think you can make a case either way. As I said above, it might be helpful to start a RM so that we can get some more input. TDL (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice chart! I find some inconsistency at the UN regarding use of a capital 'S' for system, but most references, I agree, seem to be capitalized. I'll let it rest here for now. Other input welcome, of course! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

IAEA

As far as I am aware the relationship between the IAEA and the UN is defined not by a UN General Assembly Resolution but by the a formal agreement published by the IAEA as INFCIRC/11. NPguy (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede - remove unnecessary details and a correction

I propose that we remove unnecessary details from the lede since those are already elaborated on in the respective article sections, namely the complex status of one of the affiliated organizations, the WTO. Also, the current lede wrongly states that all executives are CEB members, but there are some exceptions (see source below). (item1 is current, item2 is proposed text)

1. The United Nations System consists of the United Nations, its subsidiary organs (including the separately-administered funds and programmes), the specialized agencies, and affiliated organizations. The executive heads of the United Nations System organizations and the World Trade Organization, which is not formally part of the United Nations System, have seats on the United Nations System Chief Executives' Board for Coordination (CEB).
2. The United Nations System consists of the United Nations, its subsidiary organs (including the separately-administered funds and programmes), the specialized agencies, and affiliated organizations. Their executive heads are members of the United Nations System Chief Executives' Board for Coordination (CEB), with some exceptions.

References

Japinderum (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So let's change the sentence to "The executive heads of some of the United Nations System organizations and the World Trade Organization, which is not formally part of the United Nations System...". The fact that the CEB contains a member which is not part of the UN system is important to note. TDL (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WTO and CEB have their own sections, there's no need to duplicate such detail in the lead. Japinderum (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." TDL (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So, the WTO relationship is the most important aspect of the UNSystem? Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, read the sentence again. TDL (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's not, then why do you insist on duplicating the details about the WTO status in the lede? Japinderum (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." TDL (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

OPCW and CTBTO

Regarding this - whether IAEA/WTO and OPCW/CTBO are different according to the sources is discussed here, but in case we don't come to an agreement, then they should be restored to their status quo version. Japinderum (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't divide them. They are all grouped together under "Related organizations" here: [4], [5] [6]. Of course a list of CEB states doesn't include them, because they don't participate in the CEB. But lists which include all these organizations don't differentiate. If you feel the need to go back to the revision you linked to above, then feel free. TDL (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the discussion link? There are shown the sources and it's explained. Even one of the sources you gave shows the difference (see the dotted lines). Japinderum (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked. Yes there are differences, but they are all listed under "Related organizations" . No need for extra "redundant" division. TDL (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources clearly distinguish between IAEA/WTO and OPCW/CTBTO. IAEA/WTO are CEB members are also taken for and considered akin to the specialized agencies while OPCW/CTBTO are not.

• "The UN System, Chief Executives Board for Coordination". Unsceb.org. Retrieved 2013-01-22.: "The Executive Heads of IAEA and WTO are invited to meetings of the CEB like any other specialized agency head." - "IAEA/WTO...like any other specialized agency"; OPCW and CTBTO are not included
• List of Agreements between Specialized Agencies and the United Nations - IAEA/WTO included, OPCW/CTBTO not included
• The United Nations System chart, Published by the United Nations Department of Public Information, December 2007 - IAEA/WTO related to the specialized agencies, OPCW/CTBTO related to the UNGA
• Organizational Chart of the UN System and the CEB - IAEA/WTO at specialized agencies, OPCW/CTBTO at UNGA related organizations

We should follow the same pattern: either section "Related organization" with two subsections; or place IAEA/WTO as "related organizations" subsection of the "specialized agencies" section while keeping OPCW/CTBTO in another section "Non-proliferation organizations". Those setups also allow to keep only one instance of sentences true for both IAEA and WTO or both OPCW and CTBTO - in the subsection lede, and then individual organization paragraphs focus on unique issues about that organization (if any) without repeating what applies to both. Japinderum (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Or we could have 4 sections: "Trade organizations" "Nuclear energy organizations" "Chemical weapons organizations" and "Nuclear weapons organizations". They're all related to the UN. Their relationships are all different. Trying to lump them into subsections is overly simplistic. TDL (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not simplistic, it's what the sources do. "Almost"-specialized-agencies are quite different (in status, institutional arrangements and everything) from WMD-non-proliferation-organizations. The sources present them separately and we should do the same. Japinderum (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are WP:CHERRY picking and misrepresent the sources to support your WP:FRINGE view. Sources list them together, so should we: [7] [8] [9]. TDL (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Related organizations

Per the above I restored the status quo, so that we can discuss here what to do with this section and sandbox. Japinderum (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Related organizations (proposal)

Among the United Nations System organizations there are also some with specific affiliation arrangements.

Members of the CEB and akin to specialized agencies

Some organizations have their relationship with the UN defined by an arrangement different from the agreements between the specialized agencies and the UN, whose agreements are based on Articles 57 and 63 of the United Nations Charter. They are taken for and considered akin to the specialized agencies, and like the other specialized agency's heads, their executives are members of the United Nations System Chief Executives' Board for Coordination (CEB).

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

The relationship between the IAEA and the UN was established by a resolution of the UN General Assembly. Unlike the specialized agencies which report to ECOSOC, the IAEA reports directly to the General Assembly, as well as the Security Council and ECOSOC.

World Trade Organization (WTO)

The relationship between the WTO and the UN was established by an exchanges of letters with the UN Secretary General, a decision of ECOSOC, and noted by a resolution of the UN General Assembly. Unlike the specialized agencies and the IAEA, the WTO has no reporting obligations towards any of the principal organs of the UN, but provides ad-hoc contribution to the work of the General Assembly and ECOSOC. Due to this complex status, sometimes the WTO is not considered to be formally part of the UN System.

Not members of the CEB

The following WMD non-proliferation organizations signed cooperation agreements with the UN modeled on the IAEA agreement. They are not members of the Chief Executives Board (CEB), and report directly to the UN General Assembly.

• Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission (CTBTO PrepCom)
• Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

Discussion

About TDL comment: misleading text about "sometimes the WTO is not considered ...". It presents the sources about "WTO not considered to be formally part of the UN System". Those are in contrast to the sources elsewhere in the section showing the WTO as one of the UN System organizations ("related organizations", "affiliated organizations", etc.) such as United Nations System of Organizations and others. I don't see what's misleading in that, but we can reword it if needed. Japinderum (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they show them as "related organizations" or "affiliated organizations" because they have a relationship agreement with the UN. But your conclusion that this makes them a "UN System organizations" is OR. You can't be related to yourself. In spite of my repeated requests, you've not provided a single source to back this up. If no sources say "The WTO is part of the UN System", then it's very misleading to say "sometimes the WTO is not considered part of the UN System". All the sources say they aren't. It's simply a WP:WEASEL way to twist the facts. TDL (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The WTO is one of the organizations in the UN System.[10] It's also a regular full member of the UN System governing body, the CEB. That's quite contrasting with "WTO is not part of the UN system" (per other sources) - clearly, it's "status is complex" (as stated in one of the official sources). Sometimes it's considered to be part (e.g. UN System governing body member), sometimes it's not (e.g. relationship arrangement formalities). Depending on the context and meaning put in "part of". No weasel here. Japinderum (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that you haven't actually provided a single reliable source to back up your claim that " Sometimes it's considered to be part" of the UN Syytem. Yes it has a seat at the CEB. But does that make it part of the UN system? You are doing OR and claiming that it does. However, you've not provided a single reliable WP:SECONDARY source to back up your assertions. Until you have, such OR doesn't belong in the article. TDL (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Nations System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071115065418/http://www.un.org/sg/management.shtml to http://www.un.org/sg/management.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Fictional organisation diagram

The current diagram drawing File:UN_Institutions2.svg misrepresents the functions of the organisation's organs. The "Secretary General" does NOT implement decisions, he does not wear a blue-helmet or carry a gun, he does not dispense medicine or money, it is not his job to implement policies or agreements made by organs of the UN. He is not an organ of the UN, he is the chief of the secretariat organ of the UN. The reason all nations secretly fear him is because his first job is to prepare the AGENDA of every other UN organ, he can slow or delay or prioritise any issue in any organ like the Security Council, or ICJ; and he can illegally omit issues from the agendas - especially if he uses his other prerogative powers to obscure those issues from the organs involved. His official duties (and reason he is responsible for the agendas) is to prepare all records and documents required by the Charter of the organisation. The "PeaceKeeping Forces" can be controlled either by the Security Council (via Charter chapters 6,7,8,12) or by the General Assembly (via Charter chapter 12 article 85 part 1). Daeron (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)