Skip to main content

ABF Professor Discusses Proposals to Strengthen the Rule of Law at UN Meeting

March 17, 2016, Press releases

Photo courtesy of Terence Halliday


Contact:      Cheyenne Blount
Phone:        (312) 988-6515
Fax:             (312) 988-6579
Twitter:       @ABFResearch

Chicago, IL – Terence Halliday, research professor at the American Bar Foundation (ABF) and co-director of ABF’s Center on Law and Globalization, spoke to foreign diplomats, ambassadors, and U.N. officials about new proposals to strengthen the rule of law during a dialogue at the U.N. headquarters on Friday, March 11, 2016.

The discussion, on “Strengthening the Rule of Law through the United Nations Security Council (UNSC),” was hosted by the Rule of Law Unit on behalf of the U.N. Rule of Law Coordination and Resource Group, the Permanent Mission of Australia and the Permanent Mission of Japan. It marked the official launch of a report of policy proposals by Australian institutions to enhance the capacity of the UNSC to strengthen the rule of law when it deploys peace operations, applies sanctions, and authorizes the use of force. Australia held a two-year elected term as a member of the UNSC from 2013 to 2015. The report was developed by the Australian Civil-Military Centre (ACMC) and Centre for International Governance and Justice at Australian National University (ANU), where Halliday holds an appointment. The proposals were informed by an empirical study conducted by ACMC and AMU, and supported by the Australian Research Council. Although the dialogue was not an official U.N. endorsement of the report’s proposals, it was a critical opportunity for member states to reflect on the recommendations, exchange knowledge and experiences and further discuss how the UNSC can be more consistent with the fundamentals of the rule of law.

The policy proposals enlist a responsive model of decision making to increase the UNSC’s capacity to promote the rule of law, based on four fundamental principles -- transparency, consistency, accountability and engagement. The recommendations are intended to inform the actions of the UNSC, but are also a tool of analysis and evaluation for “member states, civil society actors and researchers,” according to the concept note. “…The more these principles are respected and promoted in both the UNSC’s decision-making and in the implementation of UNSC decisions, the more the rule of law will be strengthened,” the concept note states. The authors of the report, Alan Ryan, Ph.D., executive director of the ACMC; and ANU researchers, Jeremy Farrall, Ph.D., and Professor Hilary Charlesworth, presented their proposals at the dialogue. Halliday then followed with his observations, focusing on the implications of the proposals on the U.N.’s efforts to encourage rule of law internationally.

In his remarks, Halliday began by explaining why global standards fail, referencing his ABF research on global governance. Global standards fail because they are “built on weak foundations,” the authority asserting them typically “lacks legitimacy,” final veto power is held locally, and ultimately, because there are issues with the “expression of the ideals themselves,” he said. Halliday then focused on the strengths of the report, asserting that the proposals are “pragmatic,” built upon “empirical foundations,” directed at “outcomes” and reflect “high ideals.” He highlighted several key proposals, including one that states the UNSC should hear the views of those who may be adversely affected by a decision before it is introduced, and another for practical recommendations for peace-keeping mandates and the expansion of “ombudsperson process in sanctioning regimes.”

Halliday mentioned many other recommendations, applauding the empirical basis of “Recommendation 52,” which states the UNSC must clearly identify the “objectives for which force may be employed” and the “objectively verifiable circumstances” that may lead to the termination of their authorization to use force. In his concluding remarks, Halliday stressed that the policy proposals offer a “renewed vision” that is highly adaptable. “They offer us the determination that rule of law can restrain the exercise of arbitrary power in the global heights of the UNSC and the distant localities in the farthest corners of the world. It is in these remote places where the weak and poor and suffering look to the U.N., to the UNSC, and to U.N. member states as an institution of last resort,” Halliday said. “[The proposals] will help silence the skeptics and bring justice and protection to those whose silent voices need most to be heard.”

Listen to the full audio of Professor Halliday’s remarks:


About Terence C. Halliday

Halliday is a research professor and sociologist at the American Bar Foundation and the co-director of the Center on Law and Globalization. He is a specialist in globalization and law. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and is co-author, with Sida Liu, of the forthcoming book, Criminal Defense in China: The Politics of Lawyers at Work (Cambridge University Press).

About the American Bar Foundation

The American Bar Foundation (ABF) is the nation's leading research institute for the empirical study of law. An independent, nonprofit organization for more than 60 years, The American Bar Foundation’s mission is to serve the legal profession, the public, and the academy through empirical research, publications, and programs that advance justice and the understanding of law and its impact on society. The ABF’s primary funding is provided by the American Bar Endowment and The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in faculty and doctoral fellow publications are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Bar Foundation.


« Return to Press releases

Site design by Webitects

© 2018 American Bar Foundation (
750 North Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60611-4403
(312) 988-6500
Contact Us
Media Contacts
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in ABF publications are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Bar Foundation or the American Bar Association. The AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION, ABF and related seal trademarks as used by the American Bar Foundation are owned by the American Bar Association and used under license.